alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 99.3**

 

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the Annual Report of The RiceX Company (the“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Daniel L. McPeak, Sr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, pursuant to18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)           TheReport fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Daniel L. McPeak, Sr.            |   |
|--------------------------------------|--------|
| Daniel L. McPeak, Sr.                |
| Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
| March 31, 2003                       |

 

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required bythe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00025-CV

Jerry Scarbrough, Denise Steele, and Melissa Victoria Deaton, Appellants

v.

Helen Purser, Sue E. Purser a/k/a Sue E. Van Zanten, Gary W. Purser, Jr., 

Joann M. Purser, and Elizabeth H. Tipton, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 236,117-B, HONORABLE ALAN MAYFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellees filed a motion to abate this appeal to supplement the record with certain

deposition testimony presented to the jury by video but not transcribed into the court reporter’s

record. Appellants Denise Steele, JerryScarbrough, andMelissaVictoria Deaton oppose the motion.

Appellants and appellees agreed at trial that the reporter would not transcribe

videotaped deposition testimony from Steele, Scarbrough, Deaton, and Dr. Sharon Barber

(Gary Purser, Sr.’s treating physician). The parties disagree about whether these witnesses’

depositions were provided to the court reporter Angela Ralston, but Ralston has notified us that

she has the excerpts of the deposition testimony provided to her at trial. Ralston states that she can

scan the excerpts given to her at trial and provide them to us as a supplemental volume of the

reporter’s record.
Appellees contend that the missing testimony from Steele, Scarbrough, Deaton, and

Barber is relevant, the record should be supplemented with it, and the appellate rules allow such

supplementation. We agree. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(d) states that “[i]f anything

relevant is omitted from the reporter’s record, the trial court, appellate court, or any party may by

letter direct the court reporter to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplemental

reporter’s record containing the omitted items.” Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d); see also Tex. R. App.

P. 34.6(e) (allowing for correction of inaccuracies in reporter’s record when parties’ dispute

about correction of reporter’s record arises after its filing in appellate court); In re Estate of

Arrendell, 213 S.W.3d 496, 500 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (concluding that record may

be considered inaccurate “when a portion is omitted—either because not taken or because taken but

not transcribed”); Rogers v. Cigna Ins. Co., 881 S.W.2d 177, 180-81 (Tex. App.—Houston

[1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (allowing record to be supplemented with deposition transcriptions that had

been produced in discovery).

We therefore grant appellees’ motion and abate this appeal for Ralston’s

supplementation of the reporter’s record with the excerpts of testimony from Steele, Scarbrough,

Deaton, and Barber. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(d). The supplemental volume shall be filed with this

Court no later than May 19, 2014. The appeal will be reinstated after the filing of the supplemental

reporter’s record.

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Rose and Goodwin

Abated

Filed: April 18, 2014

2
#### MARKS v. THE STATE.

(Decided May 30, 1916.)

Appeal from Jefferson Criminal Court.

Heard before Hon. H. P. Heflin.

No counsel marked for appellant. W. L. Martin, Attorney General, for the State.

Evans, J.

No bill of exceptions in the record, and the record appearing in all things regular, the cause is affirmed.
§ 2589.1 Civil penalties under section 8477(e)(1)(B) of FERSA. ( a ) Section 8477(e)(1)(B) of FERSA, 5 U.S.C. 8477(e)(1)(B), permits the Secretary of Labor to assess a civil penalty against a party in interest who engages in a prohibited transaction with respect to the Thrift Savings Fund. The initial penalty under section 8477(e)(1)(B) is five percent of the “amount involved” in each such transaction for each year or part thereof during which the prohibited transaction continues. However, if the prohibited transaction is not corrected during the “correction period,” the civil penalty may be in an amount not more than 100% of the “amount involved.” The Department of Labor will apply the definitions set out in § 2560.502i-1(b) through (e) of this chapter of title 29 (civil penalties under section 502(i) of ERISA) in determining the “amount involved,” “correction,” “correction period,” and for computation of the section 8477(e)(1)(B) penalty.
( b ) The rules of practice set forth in §§ 2570.1-2570.12 of part 2570, subpart A of subchapter G of this chapter of title 29 (procedures for the assessment of civil sanctions under ERISA section 502(i)) are applicable to prohibited transaction penalty proceedings under FERSA section 8477(e)(1)(B).
§ 22.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may file a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing, seeking to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the ALJ may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the ALJ;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the ALJ;
( 8 ) That a trade secret or other confidential research, development, commercial information, or facts pertaining to any criminal investigation, proceeding, or other administrative investigation not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way; or
( 9 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the ALJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 813 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 813

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 
 deduction for attorney fees and costs in connection with civil claim 
                                awards.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 8, 2007

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow an above-the-line 
 deduction for attorney fees and costs in connection with civil claim 
                                awards.

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

SECTION 1. ABOVE-THE-LINE DEDUCTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS IN 
              CONNECTION WITH CIVIL CLAIM AWARDS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (20) of section 62(a) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
            ``(20) Costs involving civil cases.--Any deduction 
        allowable under this chapter for attorney fees and court costs 
        paid by, or on behalf of, the taxpayer in connection with any 
        action involving a civil claim. The preceding sentence shall 
        not apply to any deduction in excess of the amount includible 
        in the taxpayer's gross income for the taxable year on account 
        of a judgment or settlement (whether by suit or agreement and 
        whether as lump sum or periodic payments) resulting from such 
        claim.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 62 of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (e).
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to fees and costs paid after the date of the enactment of this 
Act with respect to any judgment or settlement occurring after such 
date.
                                 <all>
```
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN NO. 03-0 7 -00 397 -CR
Le e And r e w Da vis , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 6065 5 , HO NORAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N L ee And re w Da v i s seeks to appe al a judg ment of convic tion for burg lary of a habitation. The tr ia l c o urt h a s c e rti f ie d th a t t h is is a p le a b ar g a in c a s e an d D av is h a s n o r igh t of appea l. The appe al is dismis sed. SeeTex. R. App. P . 25.2(a) (2), ( d).

__________________________________________ J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: August 1, 2007 Do No t Pu

bli sh
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00008

- CV

RALPH ADAMS AND ALL OTHER

OCCUPANTS OF 2557 MA RINA

DRIVE, GRAND PRAIRIE , TEXAS

75054 APPELLANT

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE

ASSOCIATION AKA FANN IE MAE APPELLEE

------ ------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

On June 20, 2012 , we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Te x. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.

App . P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let executi on issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER , J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J., and GABRIEL, J

.

DELIVERED: July 19, 2012
§ 1921.6 Intervention. At any time after the institution of proceedings and before the hearing examiner makes his decision, the hearing examiner may, upon petition in writing and for good cause shown, permit any interested person, including an employer, employee, labor or trade organization, or Federal or State agency, to intervene therein. The petition shall state with precision and particularity: ( a ) The petitioner's relationship to the matters involved in the proceedings,
( b ) The nature of any material he intends to present in evidence,
( c ) The nature of any argument he intends to make, and
( d ) Any other reason that he should be allowed to intervene.
#### §§ 1910.361-1910.380 [Reserved]
A-AA+Skip to content

                  - Home
                  - Compendium Statistics
                  - Event
                  - Archives
                  - Glossary
                  - Help
                  - Contact
                  - Research on Disability

Annual Disability Statistics Compendium

              - Home /
              - Compendium Statistics /
              - Population and Prevelance /
              - 1.11 Civilians Ages 18-64 Years Living in the Community for the U.S.-Ambulatory Disability

## Table 1.11: Civilians Ages 18 to 64 Years Living in the Community for the United States and States—Ambulatory Disability: 2012

----

----

 

----

#### 2012 Disability Compendium

                        - Home
                        - Compendium Statistics                           - Population and Prevelance
                          - Employment
                          - Time Trend Population Statistics
                          - Poverty
                          - Earnings
                          - Veterans
                          - Health Insurance Coverage
                          - Health
                          - Social Security Administration Programs
                          - Medicaid and Medicare
                          - Special Education
                          - Vocational Rehabilitation
                          - Federal Government Spending and Employment
                          - International Disability Statistics
                          - Population Statistics: Disability Type
                        - Event
                        - Archives                           - 2012 Compendium Statistics
                        - Glossary
                        - Help
                        - Contact
                        - Research on Disability

#### Funding for this project is made possible by:

 The Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics (StatsRRTC), which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research, under cooperative agreements H133B080012.

#### Stay Connected

**Institute on Disability**10 West Edge Drive, Suite 101Durham, NH 03824603.862.4320 | relay: 711 | [email protected]www.iod.unh.edu

© 2013. Institute on Disability.University of New Hampshire.
#### PRUNKLE v DRZEWIECKI

Ohio Appeals, 6th Dist, Luacs Co

No 2323.

Decided March 17, 1930

Marion W. Bacóme, Toledo, for Prunkle.

Stanley A. Konczal, Toledo, for Drzewiecki.

*305RICHARDS, J.

Under the state of the evidence in this case it is apparent that summons was never served on John Prunkle in any manner and that he had no knowledge of the bringing or pendency of the action until long after the judgment was rendered, and has not had his day in court on the original action.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Williams and Lloyd, JJ., concur.
Enclosure 3-1 

ENCLOSURE 3 

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE 
Enclosure 3-2 
Enclosure 3-3 

 
Enclosure 3-4
March 23, 2011

Attachment to Form “Documentation of OMB Review Under Executive Order 12886”

Note to the File 

FROM: Kathleen Franklin, USEPA/OSWER/OEM

Regarding Proposed Rule for EHS TPQ Solids in Solution- Changes from OMB Review

[Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; Amendments to Emergency 

Planning and Notification; Emergency Planning and List of Extremely Hazardous Substances 

and Threshold Planning Quantities.

PA-HQ-SFUND-2010-0586; FRL_XXXX-X] RIN 2050-AF08

Docket Number EPA-HQ- SFUND-2010-0586

All changes in the redline/strikeout version of the rule that was reviewed by ORIA/OMB are due 

to suggestions or recommendations of ORIA, except as noted below:

1. Last paragraph on bottom of page 10 and continuing on one line on page 11 - This was added 

by EPA when errors in EHS list in CFR was discovered.

2. EPA did not delete the third and fourth sentences under paragraph A. Executive Order 12866: 

Regulatory Planning and Review on page 43 as ORIA suggested because EPA’s requirements 

for the template language in this section allows some explanation for the impact of the 

regulation.
Order entered January 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00439-CR

THEODORE ROOSEVELT ARTHUR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-58513-J

ORDER

On December 18, 2014, this Court ordered court reporter Karren Jones to file, within 

fifteen days, an amended Volume 5 of the reporter’s record that contains all of the pages, 

including page 284. To date, Ms. Jones has neither filed the amended record nor communicated 

with the Court regarding the status of the amended record.

Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Karren Jones to file, by 4:00 p.m. on FRIDAY, 

JANUARY 16, 2015, an amended Volume 5 of the reporter’s record that contains all of the 

pages, including page 284. If we do not receive the amended volume by the date and time 

specified, we will utilize the available remedies, including ordering that Karren Jones not sit as a 

court reporter until she complies with this order.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Gracie Lewis, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 3; Karren Jones, court 

reporter, and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
§ 2700.55 Powers of Judges. Subject to these rules, a Judge is empowered to: ( a ) Administer oaths and affirmations;
( b ) Issue subpoenas authorized by law;
( c ) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;
( d ) Order depositions to be taken;
( e ) Regulate the course of the hearing;
( f ) Hold conferences for the settlement or simplification of the issues;
( g ) Dispose of procedural requests or similar matters;
( h ) Make decisions in the proceedings before him, provided that he shall not be assigned to make a recommended decision; and
( i ) Take other action authorized by these rules, by 5 U.S.C. 556, or by the Act.
§ 1980.107 Hearings. ( a ) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title.
( b ) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to an ALJ who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted de novo, on the record. ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.
( c ) If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.
( d ) Formal rules of evidence will not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence will be applied. The ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.
[80 FR 11880, Mar. 5, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 1789, Jan. 11, 2021]
#### WILLIAMS v. CITY OF TUSCALOOSA.

(Decided November 28, 1916.)

Appeal from Tuscaloosa City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. B. Foster.

No counsel marked for appellant.

Brown & Ward, for appellee.

Per curiam.

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.
tiOT-osr-wn-z'^te 

J ^ ^ 

JAMESTOWN REGIONAL AIRPORT 

-ADMIRAL DON WEISS FIELDP O BOX 1560» Jamestown, North Dakota 58402-1560 

Phone: 701-252-6466 Fax: 701-252-2919 

Website: www.flyjamestown.net 

7/25/2011 

Dennis J. DeVany ^^ 

Essentia] Air Service Division, X-53 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

USDOT 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington. D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. DeVany; 

On July 15,2011 the Jamestown Regional Airport Authority received a ninety day notice for 

termination of service fiom Mesaba Aviation, Inc. and Pinnacle Airlines Inc. d/b/a Delta 

Connection, Therefore, the Jamestown Regional Airport Authority would like to request the 

DOT extend the deadline 30 days for our HAS RFP. Docket DOT-OST-1997-2785, originally due 

August 1,2011. 

Respectfully, 

Matthew .TamAQ RnvH ' J. Leitner James Boyd 

Manager, Jamestown Regional Airport Chainnan, JRAA 

Cc: Mr. Johnathao Nord, Manager, Devils Lake Regional Airport
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of The First Years Inc., a Massachusetts corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

      The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report for the year ended December 31,
2003 (the "Form 10-K/A") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the
information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: April 29, 2004


By: /s/ Ronald J. Sidman
    -----------------------------
    Ronald J. Sidman
    Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the
    Board of Directors, and President


Dated: April 29, 2004


By: /s/ John R. Beals
    -----------------------------
    John R. Beals
    Treasurer and Senior Vice President - Finance
    (Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer)
Order entered March 2, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01415

- CV

SOUTHAMPTON LTD. AND SOUTHWEST REINSURANC E, INC., Appellant s

V.

FOUR HORSEMEN AUTO G ROUP, INC., CHISHOLM TRAIL AUTO GROUP, LL C,
CHISHOLM TRAIL AUTO GROUP II, LLC, CHISHOLM TRAIL REAL ESTATE, LLC, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 13331



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellants’ February 26, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to

file reply brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than March 17, 2015

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART

JUSTICE