alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed; Opinion Filed October 9, 2015

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01095

- CV

SOUTHERN MECHANICAL PLUMBING, INC. , Appellant

V.

GCC MCCARTHY JOINT VENTURE IV, MC CARTHY BUILDING COMP ANIES,
INC. , GCC ENTERPRISES, INC ., AND WASHINGTON INTERNATI ONAL

INSURANCE COMPANY , Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 02769



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Evans, and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Evans

Stating it does not wish to proceed with the appeal because the underlying dispute has

been resolved, appellant has filed a motion to dismiss. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant

the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id. , 43.2(f).

151095F.P05 /David W. Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SOUTHERN MECHANICAL PLUMBING, INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 15

- 01095

- CV V.

GCC MCCARTHY JOINT VENTURE IV, MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, INC., GCC ENTERPRISES, INC., AND
WASHINGTON INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 02769. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices Lang and Whitehill participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER appellees GCC McCarthy Joint Venture IV, McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., GCC Enterprises, Inc., and Washington International Insurance Company recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Southern Mechanical Plumbing, Inc.

Judgment entered this 9th day of October, 2015.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGround Systems Development Environment (GSDE) interface requirements analysisA set of procedural and functional requirements are presented for the interface between software development environments and software integration and test systems used for space station ground systems software. The requirements focus on the need for centralized configuration management of software as it is transitioned from development to formal, target based testing. This concludes the GSDE Interface Requirements study. A summary is presented of findings concerning the interface itself, possible interface and prototyping directions for further study, and results of the investigation of the Cronus distributed applications environment.Document ID19920002484Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsChurch, Victor E.*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Philips, John*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Hartenstein, Ray*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Bassman, Mitchell*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Ruskin, Leslie*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Perez-Davila, Alfredo*(Computer Sciences Corp. Beltsville, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJune 1, 1991Subject CategoryComputer SystemsReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-188822CSC/TM-91/6102NAS 1.26:188822Accession Number92N11702Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC9-16PROJECT: RICIS PROJ. SE-34Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19920002484.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 99.1

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

     In connection  with the filing of the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended  September 30, 2002 (the "Report") by  Renaissance  Acceptance
Group, Inc. ("Registrant"), the undersigned hereby certifies that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and

     2.  The  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         Registrant.


                                          /s/ Paul W. Fagan
                                          ---------------------------
                                          Paul W. Fagan
                                          President, Chief Executive and
                                          principal financial officer
§ 240.223 Criteria for the certificate. ( a ) As a minimum, each certificate issued in compliance with this part shall: ( 1 ) Identify the railroad or parent company that is issuing it;
( 2 ) Indicate that the railroad, acting in conformity with this part, has determined that the person to whom it is being issued has been determined to be qualified to operate a locomotive;
( 3 ) Identify the person to whom it is being issued (including the person's name, employee identification number, the year of birth, and either a physical description or photograph of the person);
( 4 ) Identify any conditions or limitations, including the class of service or conditions to ameliorate vision or hearing acuity deficiencies, that restrict the person's operational authority;
( 5 ) Show the effective date of each certification held;
( 6 ) Be signed by a supervisor of locomotive engineers or other individual designated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section;
( 7 ) Show the date of the person's last operational monitoring event as required by §§ 240.129(c) and 240.303(b), unless that information is reflected on supplementary documents which the locomotive engineer has in his or her possession when operating a locomotive; and
( 8 ) Be of sufficiently small size to permit being carried in an ordinary pocket wallet.
( b ) Each railroad to which this part applies shall designate in writing any person, other than a supervisor of locomotive engineers, that it authorizes to sign the certificates described in this section. The designation can identify such persons by name or job title.
( c ) Nothing in paragraph (a) of this section shall prohibit any railroad from including additional information on the certificate or supplementing the certificate through other documents.
( d ) It shall be unlawful for any railroad to knowingly or any individual to willfully: ( 1 ) Make, cause to be made, or participate in the making of a false entry on that certificate; or
( 2 ) Otherwise falsify that certificate through material misstatement, omission, or mutilation.
[56 FR 28254, June 19, 1991, as amended at 58 FR 19003, Apr. 9, 1993; 64 FR 60993, Nov. 8, 1999; 85 FR 81315, Dec. 15, 2020]
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

With  respect to the Annual Report of Central Natural  Resources,
Inc.,  a  Delaware corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K  for
the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"), I,
Phelps  C.  Wood, President and Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350, as  adopted
pursuant to  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
result of operations of the Company.


Dated:   March 29, 2004.

/s/ Phelps C. Wood
____________________________________
Phelps C. Wood
President & Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to
18  U.S.C.   1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report
or  as  a  separate disclosure document, and is not to be deemed
incorporated  by reference into any filing under  the Securities
Act  or  the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
specifically incorporates it by reference.
**Exhibit 32.1**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, W. Douglas Parker,the Chief Executive Officer of America West Holdings Corporation (the“Company”) and Derek J. Kerr, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company,hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:
1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2004, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the“Periodic Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 21stday of July, 2004.          /s/ W. Douglas Parker                  W. Douglas Parker     Chief Executive Officer            /s/ Derek J. Kerr                  Derek J. Kerr     Chief Financial Officer
§ 238.137 Mixed consist; operating equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems. ( a ) A train made up of equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems shall be operated within the constraints of each such door system.
( b ) No later than December 6, 2018, each railroad shall adopt and comply with operating rules to provide for the safe use of equipment with incompatible exterior side door systems when utilized in a mixed consist.
[80 FR 76148, Dec. 7, 2015]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/5/15 11:11 AM

Received: June 03, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8j7q-557l

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0304

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Oren Peretz

General Comment

I am an independent financial consultant with over 600 accounts held directly at mutual funds 

and insurance companies where I am the agent of record. These consist mostly of small investor 

accounts for whom other advisors would otherwise not service unless done under a more 

expensive RIA (Registered Investment Advisor) fee-based arrangement in order to meet all the 

fiduciary requirements.

I need more time to analyze how the rule will impact my clients and my business practices, 

especially within the existing IRA sphere. I want to provide the DOL with commentary that will 

be helpful in their review of the proposal. 

However, the hundreds of pages and complexity of the proposal makes it impossible to 

accomplished within the 90-day comment period that is currently attached to the proposal.

There, I request an extension of time to properly prepare this analysis, impact, and response to 

120 days instead of the current 90 days.

Thank You,

Oren Peretz

Investment Advisor Representative

First Allied Advisory Services

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b17d68&format=xml&showo... 6/5/2015
#### William C. Baur and another, Respondents, v. David Meyer, Appellant.

Order affirmed, without costs. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 

2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0585 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Donna Hearn Frydman 

Address: 

7601 N. Federal Hwy 100B 

Boca Raton, FL, 33487 

Email: dhearn@drughelp.com 

Organization: Alternatives In Treatment 

General Comment 

We are wondering about enforcement of the Parity Law? 

There does not seem to be board or regulatory agency for us to report violations. For instance, as an owner of a 

small, private treatment program which has been treating dually-diagnosed clients for 20 years, we still are 

getting denials from major insurers based on the criteria that our clients have not "failed at a lower level of care." 

When we ask the physicians to give us medical criteria for denial as is our right, they only state they have not 

failed at out-patient yet. We cannot hold them accountable. PLEASE help us with this. We are positive they meet 

ASAM criteria; they are in groups which are 50 or more, etc. We would appreciate any help. As an addictional 

professional for 30+ years, I would be honored to volunteer to help monitor the rights of citizens. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: April 27, 2010 

Received: April 20, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80adbe13 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web
From: R Lucia [mailto:r.lucia60@gmail.com] 

Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 3:52 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Health Plan For All Americans

I have worked in Health Care all of my adult life. I worked in a managed care setting in 

Southern CA called Kaiser Permanente Foundation for 11 years. I then started to work in 

the "Real World". I didn't realize how efficient Kaiser was until I got out of it and how 

much waste there is going on in health care. It is appauling to me that Medical 

professionals charge as much as they can for everything. A Doctor may decide that a 

patient needs a procedure because the MD needs the money. These things do not happen 

inside a system like Kaiser as only if the patient is healthy and happy is the system 

healthy. I would encourage looking into this system (kaiser). The mental health 

component is not very good and it does not do well with specialty areas, but for wellness 

and things it has well researched and the basic premis that prevention, routine checkups 

and supervision and accountability for everyone patients and emplyees (administators 

too) is the way to go. 

 

Thanks, 

 

Rinea Lucia
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-51208

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LEVER SANDER QUINTANILLA-SALGADO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:12-CR-466-1

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lever Sander Quintanilla-Salgado appeals from his within-guidelines

sentence of 46 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into the United States after

deportation. He challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence,

arguing that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary

to achieve the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and because it does not

reflect his personal history and circumstances. He also argues that his sentence

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 15, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
No. 12-51208

is unreasonable because the illegal reentry Guideline lacks an empirical basis

and double counts criminal history, and illegal reentry essentially is a mere

trespass offense. He concedes that his challenge to the lack of an empirical basis

for the illegal reentry Guideline is foreclosed by United States v. MondragonSantiago, 564 F.3d 357, 366-67 (5th Cir. 2009).

We review sentences for substantive reasonableness, in light of the

§ 3553(a) factors, under an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38, 49-51 (2007). A within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a

presumption of reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 347

(2007). We have rejected the argument that illegal reentry is merely a trespass

offense that is treated too harshly under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2. See United States v.

Aguirre-Villa, 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Quintanilla-Salgado’s

disagreement with the district court’s weighing of the § 3553(a) factors is

insufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a

within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th

Cir. 2009). “[T]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and

judge their import under § 3553(a) with respect to a particular defendant.”

United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). The fact

that we “might reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was

appropriate is insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Gall, 552 U.S.

at 51.

Quintanilla-Salgado has not demonstrated that the district court abused

its discretion by sentencing him to a within-guidelines sentences of 46 months. 

See id. at 51. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-51208 Document: 00512407028 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2013
#### George S. Lings et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of G. S. Lings & Company, Respondents, *v.*Blodgett *&*Orswell Company, Appellant.

*Zings*v. *Blodgett & Orswell Co.,*140 App. Div. 933; appeal dismissed.

(Argued April 24, 1911;

decided May 2, 1911.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 28, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a verdict in an action on contract for goods sold and delivered.

The motion was made on the ground that the appeal was frivolous.

*George W. Bristol*for motion.

*Lanier McKee*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs and ten dollars costs of motion.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 235

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the percentage

of completion method of accounting shall not be required to be used

with respect to contracts for the manufacture of property if no payments

are required to be made before the completion of the manufacture of

such property.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. EHLERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that the percentage of completion method of accounting

shall not be required to be used with respect to contracts

for the manufacture of property if no payments are

required to be made before the completion of the manufacture of such property.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 235 IH

1 SECTION 1. EXCEPTION FROM PERCENTAGE OF COMPLE2 TION METHOD FOR CERTAIN MANUFACTUR3 ING CONTRACTS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 460(f)

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special

6 rule for manufacturing contracts) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘unless’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘unless—

8 ‘‘(A) such contract involves the manufac9 ture of—

10 ‘‘(i) any unique item of a type which

11 is not normally included in the finished

12 goods inventory of the taxpayer, or

13 ‘‘(ii) any item which normally requires

14 more than 12 calendar months to complete

15 (without regard to the period of the con16 tract), and

17 ‘‘(B) any payment for the manufacture of

18 such item is required to be made before the

19 manufacture of such item is completed.’’

20 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

21 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in the

22 amendments made by section 804 of the Tax Reform Act

23 of 1986.

Æ
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Specialstudies in federal tax statistics [electronic resource]**** 
SuDoc:T 22.44/2:1299
ItemNumber:0964-B(online)
CGPsystem Number:000581210
 
2003
2004
2005
2006**
## NO. 12

- 15

- 00037

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF A. B., CHILD §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402N D

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is bei ng dismissed because Appellant B.B. has failed to comply with the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, B.B.’s

docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e.,

March 4, 2015. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. Because B.B. did not file his docketing statement at

that time, this court requested by letter dated March 6, 2015 , that he file his docketing statement

within ten days if he had not already done so. B.B. did not file the do cketing statement as

requested. O n March 23, 2015 , the court notified B.B. that the appeal would be dismissed on or

before April 2, 2015 unless he filed the required docketing statement. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1.

Moreover, B.B. was notified by letter dated February 13, 2015, that his brief would be

due on or before March 16, 2015. When B.B. failed to file his brief by the due date, this court

,
by letter dated March 23, 2015, notified B.B. that the brief was past due. The notice warned that

if no motion for extension of time to file the brief was received by April 2, 2015, the appeal

would be dismissed for want of prosecution under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(b).

The April 2 deadline has passed, and B.B. has not complied with the cou rt’s request s for

the docketing statement and the motion for extension of time to file his appellate brief . Because

B.B. has failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 32.1 and 38.6(d) , the appeal filed by B.B. is2

dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (b), (c). The appeal filed by A.B. under the same

appellate cause number is not affected by this dismissal.

Opinion delivered April 15, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 15 , 2015

NO. 12

- 15

- 00037

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A . B., A CHILD

Appeal from the 402nd District Court

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2014

- 096)

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

considered, it is the opinion of this court that the appeal filed by B.B. should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that in

accordance with T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 32.1, 38.6(d) and 42.3 , the appeal filed by B.B. is hereby

dismissed for want of prosecution ; and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. The appeal filed by A.B. under the same appellate cause number is not affe cted

by this dismissal.

By per curiam opinion

.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.