alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.2**

THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended March 31, 2003

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

          The undersigned, who is the Chief Financial Officer ofThe Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Quarterly Report”), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:  May 9, 2003 |                                                                     |
|--------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | /s/  SANDRA A. KNELL                                           |
|                     |                                                                          |
|                     | **Sandra A. Knell Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer** |

          A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc.and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered December 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00875-CR

MICHAEL ARDIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-2110832-R

ORDER

We abated this appeal for the trial court to appoint counsel for appellant. 

The trial court has appointed new counsel. We REINSTATE this appeal. 

Appellant’s brief, to be filed in accordance with this Court’s opinion of October 

25, 2022, is due thirty days from the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
###### Editorial Note on Part 84

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 84 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 84.80 Interchangeability of oxygen and air prohibited.

Approvals shall not be issued by the Institute for any apparatus, combination of respirator assemblies, or any apparatus or respirator component which is designed or constructed to permit the interchangeable use of oxygen and air.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-60468 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNY N. MYLES, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:95-CR-99-1-BN

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1999 Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnny N. Myles appealed his jury-trial conviction for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine, arguing thatthe district court erred by allowing the Government to crossexamine him regarding a prior conviction. Finding that the district court had failed to make an on-the-record finding that the probative value of the prior conviction outweighed its prejudicial effect, this court remanded the case to the districtNo. 98-60468 - 2 - court. On remand, the district court made such finding and held that the conviction properly was admitted. Myles argues that the district court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Myles , No. 3:95-CR-99-1-BN (S.D. Miss.; May 23, 1997).
AFFIRMED.
First Amendment of Apogee Enterprises, Inc. Deferred Compensation



 Exhibit 10.10 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 OF 
 APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC. 
 DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 (2005
Restatement) 
 The “APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC. DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS” as adopted by APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC., a
Minnesota corporation, and first effective January 31, 1998, and as amended and restated in a document entitled “Apogee Enterprises, Inc. Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors (2005 Restatement)” effective
January 1, 2005 is hereby amended in the following respects: 
 1. DEFINITIONS. Effective December 31, 2009 for elections made by the Participant
for Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, Section 2.1.12 of the Plan Statement is deleted without a replacement (and all subsequent sections are renumbered). 
 2. ELECTION TO RECEIVE COMMON STOCK AT A LATER DATE IN LIEU OF CASH. Effective December 31, 2009 for elections made by the Participant for Plan Years beginning on or after January 1, 2010, the second
sentence in Section 4.1 of the Plan Statement is amended to read in full as follows: 
 The amounts to be deferred will be in the form of a Common
Stock credit to the Participating Director’s Deferred Stock Account, as set forth in Section 4.2 hereof, for the amount of the Retainer and Fees the Participating Director elects to defer. 
 3. CREDITS TO DEFERRED STOCK ACCOUNT. Effective December 31, 2009 for elections made by the Participant for Plan Years beginning on or after January 1,
2010, Section 4.2 of the Plan Statement is amended to read in full as follows: 
 4.2. Credits to Deferred Stock Account . Credits to each
Participant’s Deferred Stock Account shall be made quarterly as of the last business day of each calendar quarter. The amount credited for each quarter shall include 25% of the amount of the annual Retainer for the applicable Plan Year for
which the Participating Director chose to defer receipt of cash. The credit to the Deferred Stock Account shall be in the form of stock units in a number equal to the number of shares of Common Stock having a Fair Market Value, as defined in
Section 4.5, equal to the amount of the Retainer and Fees so elected for deferral for the applicable quarter. Amounts credited to the Deferred Stock Accounts shall be rounded to the nearest one-hundredth share. In the event that a Participating
Director elects to defer less than 100% of the Retainer and Fees in shares of Common Stock, he shall receive the balance of the payment in cash. 







 4. SAVINGS CLAUSE. Save and except as herein expressly amended, the Plan Statement shall continue in full force and
effect. 
  

					
	February 27, 2009	 	APOGEE ENTERPRISES, INC.
			
		 	By	 	 /s/ Russell Huffer

		 		 	Its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

  

 -2-
EXHIBIT 21



Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                            |  |                      
|------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Name                                        |  | State ofIncorporation
|First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc. |  | South Carolina       
|The Exchange Bank of South Carolina, Inc.   |  | South Carolina       
|First Citizens Housing Development, LLC     |  | South Carolina       
|FCB/SC Capital Trust I                      |  | Delaware             
|FCB/SC Capital Trust II                     |  | Delaware             



Subsidiaries of
First Citizens Bank and Trust Company, Inc.



|                                               |  |                      
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Name                                           |  | State ofIncorporation
|First Citizens Mortgage Corporation (Inactive) |  | South Carolina       
|Congaree 1, LLC                                |  | South Carolina       
|Daniel Island HPR, LLC                         |  | South Carolina       
|Wateree Enterprises, Inc.                      |  | South Carolina
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . A P
- 7 6 , 5 3 2

E X P A R T E J O S E L U I S P A R R A
- T E L L E S , A p p l i c a n t

O N A P P L I C A T I O N F O R A W R I T O F H A B E A S C O R P U S C A U S E N O . 0 7
- 0 7
- 0 7 3 2 6
- C R ( 1 ) I N T H E 2 8 4 J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T C O U R T T H F R O M M O N T G O M E R Y C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m . O P I N I O N
Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte
Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty to driving while intox icated and sentenc ed to thirty -five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Parra-Telles v. State , No. 09-08-00064- CR (Tex. App. – Be aumont, Fe bruar y 25, 2009). Applicant contends, inter alia , that his appellate counsel rende red ineffective assistance beca use counsel failed to timely notify Applicant that his c onviction ha d been aff irmed, and of his2

rig ht to petition t his Court for discre tionary revie w pro se. Appellate counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court, in which he stat es t h at he advised Applicant of his rig ht to pe tition this Court for discre tionary revie w by

way of a le tter in which he also informed Applicant that he was filing an Anders brief, and of Applicant’s rig ht to file a pro se
response . Appellate counsel states that Applicant was advised of the court of appea ls’ decision and

sent a copy of the appellate opinion by the court of appea ls. Howeve r, there is nothing in the rec ord

to indicate when or how Applicant was advised of the court of appea ls’ decision and opinion. This
Court has noted that the duty to send the client a copy of the court of appea ls's decision “exists afte r the court of appea ls has g rante d counsel' s motion to withdraw. This inf ormational duty could have b een place d upon the appellate courts themselves, but beca use counsel is usually bett er i n fo rm ed ab o ut his former client' s wher eabouts, it has been place d on his shoulders.” In re Schulma n , 2 5 2
S.W .3d 403, 412 n.32 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). We find, there fore , that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition for discretionar y revie w of the judgme nt of t he Ninth
Court of Appea ls in Ca use No. 09-08-00064- CR that aff irmed his conviction in Case No. 07-07- 07326-CR(1) from the 284t h J udicial Dis trict Court of Mont g om er y C o u n t y . Applicant shall file his pe tition for discretionar y revie w with the Ninth Court of Appea ls within 30 day s of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant' s rema ining cl ai ms are dismiss ed. See Ex parte Torres , 943 S.W .2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).3

Deliver ed: April 6, 2011 Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2244
RAMACHANDRAN VARADARAJAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JUAN ANTONIO SAMARANCH; RICHARD PONND; JAMES EASTON; ANITA MENEIDE; ETIENNE GLIECHITEN; LEROY T. WALKER; WILLIAM PAYNE; ELS VAN BREDA RRIESMAN; RANA VALAQUAZ; PETER PORRITT, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexa ndria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-96-1066-A) Submitted: December 31, 1996 Decided: January 23, 1997 Before HALL, WILKINS, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ramachandran Varadarajan, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order dismissing hisaction alleging libel, slander, attempted murder, illegal immigration practices, and harassment. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Varadarajan v. Samaranch , No. CA-96-1066-A (E.D. Va. Aug. 7, 1996). We deny Appellant's Motion for Order. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the quarterly  report of National Home Health Care Corp.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  October 31, 2002,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  Robert P.  Heller,  Principal  Financial  Officer of the  Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to the best of my knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

          (2)  The information  contained in the report fairly presents,  in all
               material  respects,   the  financial  condition  and  results  of
               operations of the Company.

December 13, 2002

                                        /s/ Robert P. Heller
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Robert P. Heller
                                        Principal Financial Officer
IIB 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1982 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 17, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To authorize appropriations for the rural housing and economic development program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

HR 1982 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Rural Housing and 

3 Economic Development Improvement Act of 2007’’. 

4 SEC. 2. RURAL HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

5 ASSISTANCE. 

6 (a) USE.—The Secretary of Housing and Urban De7 velopment may carry out a program, through the Office 

8 of Rural Housing and Economic Development, to provide 

9 assistance to Indian tribes, State housing finance agen10 cies, State community or economic development agencies, 

11 local nonprofit organizations and community development 

12 corporations in rural areas to support innovative housing 

13 and economic development activities in rural areas. 

14 (b) REQUIREMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT

15 NUMBER FOR ASSISTANCE.—As a condition of initial or 

16 continuing assistance under any housing or economic de17 velopment activity that is provided assistance with 

18 amounts made available under this section, the Secretary 

19 of Housing and Urban Development shall require that 

20 each member of a family so assisted (or of a family apply21 ing for such assistance) who is 18 years of age or older 

22 or is the spouse of the head of household of such family, 

23 shall have a valid social security number. 

24 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is 

25 authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Housing 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

3 

HR 1982 RFS

1 and Urban Development for assistance under this sec2 tion— 

3 (1) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and 

4 (2) $40,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009, 

5 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 16, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### Monitor-Rentenbach v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

*[Cite as 4 AOA 29]*

*Case No. C-890354*

*Hamilton County (1st)*

*Decided June 20, 1990*

*Frost & Jacobs and Mark H. Klusmeier, Esq., 2500 Central Trust Center, 201 East Fifth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.*

*Faulkner & Tepe and R. Edward Tepe, Esq., 2700 Central Trust Tower, 5 West Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, for Defendant-Appellant, Bethlehem Steel Corp.*

*Joseph Litvin, Esq., 404 Hulmán Building, 120 West Second Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402, for Defendant-Appellant, Canam Steel Corp.*

*Per Curiam.*

This cause came on to be heard upon the appeals, the transcript of the docket, journal entries and original papers from the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, the transcriptof the proceedings, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel.

Defendants-appellants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Canam Steel Corporation, appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, Monitor-Rentenbach and Insurance Company of North America, in a declaratory-judgment action involving the construction of the Forest Fair Mall. Under their summary-judgment motion, the appellees sought a declaration in the court below that mechanics' lien claims asserted by the named defendants were invalid, an order discharging surety bonds that had been executed as security for the liens pursuant to R.C. 1311.11, and judgment in their favor on the various counterclaims asserted by the defendants. The appellants' respective appeals were consolidated, and their briefs attack the granting of the summary-judgment motion.

Upon review of the record before us, we conclude that summary judgment was improvidently granted. We hold that in order for the trial court to have reached its ultimate decision, it must have weighed the evidence. It is not the province of the trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment to weigh evidence, assess its probative value, decide factual issues, or choose among reasonable inferences. *Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co.*(1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 116, 121, 413 N.E.2d 1187, 1192, certiorari denied (1981), 452 U.S. 962, 101 S. Ct. 3111; see, also, *McPherson v. Rankin*(C.A. 5, 1984), 736 F.2d 175. Accordingly, resolution of this matter by summary judgment was inappropriate, and appellants' respective assignments of error are sustained.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with law.

*Judgment reversed and cause remanded.*

SHANNON, P.J., HILDBRANDT and GORMAN, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2276

In Re: FRANKLIN C. REAVES,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (4:09-cv-00820-TLW-SVH)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin C. Reaves, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Franklin C. Reaves petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order requiring the district court to comply with the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We conclude that Reaves is 

not entitled to mandamus relief.

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used 

only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). 

Reaves asserts various violations of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure by the district court, all stemming from his 

belief that pretrial matters were improperly assigned to the 

magistrate judge. Mandamus, however, may not be used as a 

substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 

351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). As the review of any alleged errors 

by the district court may be had through the normal appellate 

process, the relief sought by Reaves is not available by way of 

mandamus.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We deny Reaves’s motion to supplement the record. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

## YearHFC Global Emission (MtCO2-eq) 

### Velders(2009) NOAA obs, prelim Velders (2009) NOAA obs



### HFC-134a HFC sum (134a, 152a, 125, 143a, 32, 365mfc)

Note: NOAA data for HFC-134a are based on the extension of a published record. NOAA data for other HFCs are unpublished and preliminary, provided courtesy of S. Montzka, NOAA.
§ 50.203 Sterilization of a mentally competent individual aged 21 or older. Programs or projects to which this subpart applies shall perform or arrange for the performance of sterilization of an individual only if the following requirements have been met: ( a ) The individual is at least 21 years old at the time consent is obtained.
( b ) The individual is not a mentally incompetent individual.
( c ) The individual has voluntarily given his or her informed consent in accordance with the procedures of § 50.204 of this subpart.
( d ) At least 30 days but not more than 180 days have passed between the date of informed consent and the date of the sterilization, except in the case of premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery. An individual may consent to be sterilized at the time of premature delivery or emergency abdominal surgery, if at least 72 hours have passed after he or she gave informed consent to sterilization. In the case of premature delivery, the informed consent must have been given at least 30 days before the expected date of delivery.
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Oman National Day

# 									Oman National Day							

Press Statement

Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State

November 18, 2022

On behalf of the United States of America, I want to express our warm wishes to the people of the Sultanate of Oman as you celebrate your National Day. We are grateful for our countries’ long-shared history and cooperation and look forward to our continued partnership. We appreciate Oman’s steadfast support in humanitarian issues, including its role in securing the freedom of American citizen Baquer Namazi from Iran. We also recognize Oman’s important role in working towards a peaceful political solution in Yemen. As you celebrate your National Day, please accept my best wishes on this joyous occasion.

Tags

Bureau of Near Eastern AffairsOffice of the SpokespersonOmanThe Secretary of State

Back to Top