alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### German RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 03-10858.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 2004.

German Rodriguez, pro se, Dalhart, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

German Rodriguez, Texas prisoner # 748574, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to pay the required filing fee. To obtain a COA, Rodriguez must make a *453substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court has denied relief on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional issue, a COA should be granted if the petitioner shows that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).

Rodriguez contends that COA should be granted and his case reinstated because he complied with the magistrate judge’s report requiring him to provide proof that he timely requested the disbursement of funds for the filing fee. He urges that the failure to pay the required fee was not attributable to him but was caused by prison officials’ unexplained delay in processing his request.

The record supports Rodriguez’s assertion that he timely requested payment of the filing fee and that he submitted documentation evidencing such request to the district court during the time prescribed by the magistrate judge.** Rodriguez has made a colorable showing that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court erred in dismissing his petition for failure to pay the required filing fee. Rodriguez also has at least facially stated a claim under the Due Process Clause. Accordingly, COA is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. *See Slack,*529 U.S. at 484.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

 In any event, it is clear that Rodriguez qualifies for pauper status now, and he is proceeding IFP in this appeal.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 150 (Friday, August 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 44188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6699]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2006-24869; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-4]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Wellington, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which revises Class E airspace at Wellington, KS.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, September 28, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2524.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on June 5, 2006 (71 
FR 32271). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on September 28, 2006. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule 
will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on July 26, 2006.
Donna R. McCord,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 06-6699 Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
No. 11-5277.

#### Savoy *v.*Washington, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00845-CV

Style: David Lancaster

v. Barbara Lancaster

Date motion filed*: November 18, 2014

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file reporter’s record

Party filing motion: Court reporter

Document to be filed: Reporter’s record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 22, 2014

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date: 

Date Requested: November 26, 2014

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: November 26, 2014

 The Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

 for the Court

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: November 24, 2014
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

** **

**SECTION 1350CERTIFICATION**

** **

In connection withthis annual report of ML Trend-Following Futures Fund L.P. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis,Chief Financial Officer of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the general partner of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date: March 31, 2009      |                 |
|--------------------------------|----------------------|
|                           |                 |
| By                             | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis               |                 |
| Chief Financial Officer        |                 |
| (Principal Financial  Officer) |                 |
|                                |                      |  |

 

1

----
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.9



FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
TIER REIT, INC. 2015 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN




WHEREAS, TIER REIT, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the TIER REIT 2015 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), which was previously adopted by the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the Company;


WHEREAS, Section 19 of the Plan provides that the Board of Directors of the Company may amend the Plan at any time, subject to certain conditions set forth therein; and


WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company that the Plan permit the Company to satisfy any applicable tax withholding obligation by withholding shares of common stock of the company with a fair market value which may exceed the minimum required tax withholding obligation, and that the Plan be so amended.


NOW, THEREFORE:


1.    Tax Withholding.  Section 16 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting subsection (b) thereof in its entirety and replacing it with the following:


(b)    Payment in Stock.  Subject to approval by the Administrator, a grantee may elect to have the Company’s tax withholding obligation satisfied, in whole or in part, by authorizing the Company to withhold from shares of Stock to be issued pursuant to any Award a number of shares with an aggregate Fair Market Value (as of the date the withholding is effected) that would satisfy the withholding amount due; provided, however, that to the extent necessary to avoid adverse accounting treatment, such share withholding shall not exceed the minimum required tax withholding obligation.  The Administrator may also require Awards to be subject to mandatory share withholding up to the required withholding amount.  For purposes of share withholding, the Fair Market Value of withheld shares shall be determined in the same manner as the value of Stock includible in income of the grantee.


2.    Effective Date of Amendment.  This Amendment to the Plan shall become effective upon the date that it is adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company.   


3.    Other Provisions.  Except as set forth above, all other provisions of the Plan shall remain unchanged.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to the Plan has been adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company this 23rd day of January, 2017.




1
No. 11-8749.

#### Crayton *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1



             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independednt public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the Registration Statements of ESC Medical Systems LTD. on
Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-6610, 333-8056 and 333-9256) and on Form S-8 (File
No. 333-6774) of our report dated March 30, 2000 relating to the
consolidated financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.


Brightman Almagor & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu

Tel Aviv, Israel
March 30, 2000
```

[House Report 106-93]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
 1st Session            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES                 106-93

=======================================================================

 
PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 472, LOCAL CENSUS QUALITY CHECK 
                                  ACT

                                _______
                                

   April 14 (legislative day April 13), 1999.--Referred to the House 
                   Calendar and ordered to be printed

                                _______

   Mr. Sessions, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 138]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 138, by a non-record vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                  summary of provisions of resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 472, 
the ``Local Census Quality Check Act,'' under a structured 
rule. The rule provides one hour of debate in the House divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Government Reform.
    Upon adoption of the resolution, the amendment printed in 
this report is considered adopted. The rule provides for the 
consideration of amendment numbered one printed in the 
Congressional Record, if offered by Rep. Maloney of New York or 
her designee, which shall be debatable for one hour equally 
divided and controlled between the proponent and an opponent. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.

                    amendment considered as adopted

Summary

    Miller (FL): Technical amendment which corrects certain 
section numbers.

Text

    Page 2, line 7, strike ``142'' and insert ``141''.
    Page 2, line 8, strike ``143'' and insert ``142''.
    Page 4, line 25, strike ``142'' and insert ``141''.
    Page 4, after line 25, strike ``143'' and insert ``142''.

                                

```
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Abraham Pierce, President and Chief Executive Officer of Fonecash, Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This Quarterly Report on 10QSB of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

Date: January 4, 2005



/s/ Abraham Pierce

_______________________



Abraham Pierce

President and Chief Executive Officer
§ 22.507 Number of transmitters per station. This section concerns the number of transmitters licensed under each station authorization in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, other than paging geographic area authorizations. ( a ) *Operationally related transmitters.* Each station must have at least one transmitter. There is no limit to the number of transmitters that a station may comprise. However, transmitters within a station should be operationally related and/or should serve the same general geographical area. Operationally related transmitters are those that operate together as a system (*e.g.*, trunked systems, simulcast systems), rather than independently.
( b ) *Split of large systems.* The FCC may split wide-area systems into two or more stations for administrative convenience. Except for nationwide paging and other operationally related transmitters, transmitters that are widely separated geographically are not licensed under a single authorization.
( c ) *Consolidation of separate stations.* The FCC may consolidate site-specific contiguous authorizations upon request (FCC Form 601) of the licensee, if appropriate under paragraph (a) of this section. Paging licensees may include remote, stand-alone transmitters under the single system-wide authorization, if the remote, stand-alone transmitter is linked to the system via a control/repeater facility or by satellite. Including a remote, stand-alone transmitter in a system-wide authorization does not alter the limitations provided under § 22.503(f) on entities other than the paging geographic area licensee. In the alternative, paging licensees may maintain separate site-specific authorizations for stand-alone or remote transmitters. The earliest expiration date of the authorizations that make up the single system-wide authorization will determine the expiration date for the system-wide authorization. Licensees must file timely renewal applications for site-specific authorizations included in a single system-wide authorization request until the request is approved. Renewal of the system-wide authorization will be subject to § 1.949 of this chapter.
( d ) *Replacement of site-by-site authorizations with single authorization.* After a paging geographic area authorization for a channel has been issued, the FCC may, on its own motion, replace the authorization(s) of any other licensee (for facilities located within that paging geographic area on that channel) with a single replacement authorization.
[62 FR 11634, Mar. 12, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 68945, Dec. 14, 1998; 64 FR 33784, June 24, 1999]
§ 27.1206 Geographic service area. ( a ) BRS: ( 1 ) For BRS incumbent licenses granted before September 15, 1995, the geographic service area (GSA) is the area that is bounded by a circle having a 35 mile radius and centered at the station's reference coordinates, which was the previous PSA entitled to incumbent licensees prior to January 10, 2005, and is bounded by the chord(s) drawn between intersection points of the licensee's previous 35 mile PSA and those of respective adjacent market, co-channel licensees;
( 2 ) For BRS BTA authorization holders, the GSA for a channel is the BTA, subject to the exclusion of overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs created on January 10, 2005.
( 3 ) If an incumbent BRS license is cancelled or is forfeited, the GSA area of the incumbent station shall dissolve and the right to operate in that area automatically reverts to the GSA licensee that held the corresponding BTA.
( b ) EBS: ( 1 ) *Existing EBS licensees.* ( i ) The GSA of EBS licenses on the E and F channel groups is defined in § 27.1216. EBS licensees on the E and F channel groups are prohibited from expanding their GSAs.
( ii ) For incumbent EBS licenses not in the E and F channel groups in effect as of October 25, 2019, the geographic service area (GSA) is the area that is bounded by a circle having a 35 mile radius and centered at the station's reference coordinates, which was the previous PSA entitled to incumbent licensees prior to January 10, 2005, and is bounded by the chord(s) drawn between intersection points of the licensee's previous 35 mile PSA and those of respective adjacent market, co-channel licensees.
( 2 ) *New initial EBS licenses.* ( i ) For EBS licenses issued in the Tribal Priority Window, the GSA consists of the rural Tribal Land (as defined in § 27.1204(b)(3)) specified in the application.
( ii ) For all other new initial licenses issued after April 27, 2020, the GSA is the county for which the license is issued, subject to the exclusion of overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs.
[84 FR 57365, Oct. 25, 2019]
#### §§ 24.702-24.708 [Reserved]
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"23-143: In Re META PLATFORMS, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"u0hzTeyZxE\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-30-2023-23-143-in-re-meta-platforms-inc-order-23-143-order-10-30-2023_2213838\/\">23-143: In Re META PLATFORMS, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-30-2023-23-143-in-re-meta-platforms-inc-order-23-143-order-10-30-2023_2213838\/embed\/#?secret=u0hzTeyZxE\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“23-143: In Re META PLATFORMS, INC. [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"u0hzTeyZxE\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: In Re META PLATFORMS, INC. [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 23-143 Origin: RIT Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
Exhibit 32
                            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 Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  Lawrence A. Sala,
President and Chief Executive  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.

/s/ Lawrence A. Sala
--------------------
Lawrence A. Sala
President and Chief Executive Officer

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

Date:  January 28, 2011

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

<PAGE>

                            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 Anaren,  Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2011 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, George A. Blanton, Sr.
Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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.

/s/ George A. Blanton
---------------------
George A. Blanton
Sr. Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

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

Date:  January 28, 2011

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Anaren,  Inc. and will be retained by Anaren,  Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 32.6351 Public telephone terminal equipment expense.

This account shall include expenses associated with public telephone terminal equipment.
#### § 25.215 [Reserved]
#### § 50-204.29 Waste disposal.

No employer shall dispose of radioactive material except by transfer to an authorized recipient, or in a manner approved by the Atomic Energy Commission or a State named in § 50-204.34(c).