alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00024-CV

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., 

minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris 

Flores

v.

Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County 

EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

On appeal from the

445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2014-DCL-00910-I

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

November 22, 2016.
#### § 417.25 Certification of results of vote.

Upon receipt of the report of the Director's Representative on the hearing and vote on removal, the Director shall certify the results of the vote to the court as required by section 402(c) of the Act.

[29 FR 8264, July 1, 1964, as amended at 78 FR 8025, Feb. 5, 2013]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 154 

Demanding the return of the USS Pueblo to the United States Navy. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2007 

Mr. ALLARD submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Demanding the return of the USS Pueblo to the United 

States Navy. 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, which was attacked and captured 

by the Navy of North Korea on January 23, 1968, was 

the first ship of the United States Navy to be hijacked 

on the high seas by a foreign military force in more than 

150 years; 

Whereas 1 member of the USS Pueblo crew, Duane Hodges, 

was killed in the assault, while the other 82 crew members were held in captivity, often under inhumane conditions, for 11 months; 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, an intelligence collection auxiliary 

vessel, was operating in international waters at the time 

of the capture, and therefore did not violate the territorial waters of North Korea; 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•SRES 154 IS 

Whereas the capture of the USS Pueblo resulted in no reprisals against the Government or people of North Korea and 

no military action at any time; and 

Whereas the USS Pueblo, though still the property of the 

United States Navy, has been retained by the Government of North Korea for more than 30 years, was subjected to exhibition in the North Korean cities of Wonsan 

and Hungham, and is now on display in Pyongyang, the 

capital city of North Korea: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) demands the return of the USS Pueblo to 

3 the United States Navy; and 

4 (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to trans5 mit copies of this resolution to the President, the 

6 Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State. 

Æ 


hmoore on PRODPC68 with HMBILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 20

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

#### § 20.204 General rule.

Whenever the Department determines that a delinquent debt is owed by an individual, to the Department or in connection with any program administered by the Department, the Department may initiate proceedings administratively to garnish the wages of the delinquent debtor.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 27, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01221-CV
SHUMONE BURNETT, Appellant V. DIRECT ACCESS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04771-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, J ustice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns When appellant failed to provide the required documentation or correspond with the Court about the status of the reporter’s record, we ordered this appe al submitted without the reporter’s record and ordered appellant to file her brief by January 19, 2 019. When she did n ot file her brief by that date, we cautioned her, b y postcard dated January 23, 2 019, that the failure to file the brief by February 4, 2019 would result in the dismissal of this appea l. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed her brief nor has she correspo nded with the Court regarding this appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b),(c).

181221F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

SHUMONE BURNETT, Appellant

No. 05-18-01221-CV V.

DIRECT ACCESS CAPITAL HOLDINGS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-04771-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee DIRECT ACCESS CAPITAL HOLDINGS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant SHUMONE BURNETT.

Judgment entered February 27, 2019
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Modtech Holdings, Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on his knowledge:



| |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | - | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |                        
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2004 |  |                        
|                      | 
|                      |  | /s/ Evan M. Gruber     
|                      |  | Evan M. Gruber         
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### § 100.45 Establishment of aids to navigation.

The District Commander will establish and maintain only those aids to navigation necessary to assist in the observance and enforcement of the special regulations issued under the District Commander's authority. These aids to navigation will be in accordance with Part 62 of this chapter. All other aids to navigation incidental to the holding of a regatta or marine parade are private aids to navigation as described in Part 66 of this chapter.

[CGD 86-031, 52 FR 42645, Nov. 6, 1987]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP98-39-022]

                    Take notice that on May 18, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) submitted its annual report pursuant to the Commissioner's Order in                     *Public Service Company of Colorado et al.,*                     Docket Nos. RP97-369-000,                     *et al.*

Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its affected jurisdictional sales customers.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before June 1, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-13625 Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1979

Report on Survey of U.S.

Shipbuilding and Repair Facilities

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Maritime Administration
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0442 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-177-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

 Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### § 784.119 Effect of natural factors on named operations.

The various activities enumerated in section 13(a)(5)—the catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of aquatic forms of animal or vegetable life as well as “the going to and returning from work” are materially controlled and affected by the natural elements. Similarly, the activities of “first processing, canning, or packing of such marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations” are subject to the natural factors mentioned above. The “loading and unloading” of such aquatic products when performed at sea are also subject to the natural forces.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Employment Conditions in Beauty Shops: A Study of Four Cities

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Erickson, Ethel. 						*Employment Conditions in Beauty Shops: A Study of Four Cities : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 133*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1935,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5423,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from
Internet Cable Corporation
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                       0001075202
<NAME>                      Internet Cable Corporation

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                       JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                   261,085
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          2,316,704
<ALLOWANCES>                            (218,994)
<INVENTORY>                              228,282
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       4,040,080
<PP&E>                                 1,655,150
<DEPRECIATION>                          (584,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        11,571,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  2,943,752
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                  10,511
<OTHER-SE>                             8,558,431
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          11,571,783
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       3,259,723
<CGS>                                  2,001,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          1,546,861
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (585)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         12640
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (300,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (300,834)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (300,834)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (.03)



</TABLE>
On appellant’s petition for reconsideration, filed November 18, 1992,

reconsideration allowed and opinion (115 Or App 440, 838 P2d 1100) modified and adhered to as modified; remanded with instructions; otherwise affirmed February 3,

petition for review denied April 20,1993 (316 Or 142)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*DENNIS DAL MAHONEY, *Appellant.*

(C89-11-36711; CA A65260)

846 P2d 413

Barry L. Adamson, Lake Oswego, for petition.

Before Richardson, Chief Judge, and Deits and Riggs,* Judges.

RICHARDSON, C. J.

*

 Riggs, J., *vice*Joseph, C. J., retired.

*3RICHARDSON, C. J.

Defendant petitions for review of our opinion. 115 Or App 440, 838 P2d 1100 (1992). We treat it as a petition for reconsideration, ORAP 9.15(1), allow it, and modify our opinion.

In our opinion, we said that two of the challenged conditions of probation, numbers 10 and 11, relating to payment of any judgment awarded to the victim in a civil action against defendant, were moot because the parties had settled the civil action and defendant had paid the amount of the settlement.

In his petition, defendant contends that the information about the settlement of the civil action was not part of the record and could not be a basis for the decision about mootness. The victim, as *amicus curiae,*had moved to supplement the record with a copy of the settlement agreement, but we denied the motion. *Amicus,*however, included a copy of the agreement in her brief, and argued that the validity of probation conditions 10 and 11 was moot. We *sua sponte*reconsider the denial of the motion to supplement the record and allow it.

Defendant argues that, even if we consider the settlement agreement, it does not moot his arguments about probation conditions 10 and 11. We need not decide that. The two conditions were imposed at the request of the victim and for her benefit. She says, in the *amicus*brief, that the two conditions are no longer necessary, because of the settlement agreement. If the victim is satisfied that probation conditions 10 and 11 are no longer necessary, then no reason exists for them to remain as conditions of probation. We remand with instructions to delete probation conditions 10 and 11.

Reconsideration allowed; opinion modified and adhered to as modified; remanded with instructions to delete probation conditions 10 and 11; otherwise affirmed.
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 402ND DISTRIC T COURT OF WOOD COUN TY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 27th

day of February, 2015 , the cau se upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

DEBBI LOFTON , Appellant

NO. 12

- 15

- 00028

- CV; Trial Court No. 2014

- 550

By per curiam opinion.

MILTON SOWARD , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered,

it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECR EED by this court that this appeal be,

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision be certified to

the court below for observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Tw elfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Sea l thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 12 th day of M a y, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
##### 



Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Compex Technologies, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report),
the undersigned, Dan Gladney, Chief Executive Officer, and Scott Youngstrom,
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| |  | 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.

| |  |                         
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | /s/ Dan Gladney         
| |  |                         
| |  | Dan Gladney             
| |  | Chief Executive Officer.
| |  | September 26, 2003      
| |  |                         
| |  | /s/ Scott Youngstrom    
| |  |                         
| |  | Scott Youngstrom        
| |  | Chief Financial Officer 
| |  | September 26, 2003      

1