alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-20-00250-CV 

CURTIS CAPPS AND THE UNKNOWN HEIRS AND 

PUBLICATION HEIRS OF ALEX SCOTT, DECEASED, APPELLANTS 

 

V. 

 

CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS, A TEXAS HOME RULE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 

D/B/A BRYAN TEXAS UTILITIES, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 361st District Court1 

Brazos County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 19-000070-CV-361, Honorable Steve Smith, Presiding 

 

November 17, 2020 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellants, Curtis Capps and the Unknown Heirs and Publication Heirs of Alex 

Scott, deceased, appeal from the trial court’s Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in 

Part, City of Bryan’s Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment. Now pending before this

Court is “Appellants’ Joint Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Appeal.” The Court finds the 

1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 

2013).
2

motion complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that 

granting the motion will not prevent any party from seeking relief to which it would 

otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the Court has been delivered to date, we grant 

the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Pursuant to the motion, costs will be taxed against 

Appellants. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our 

mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19579]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 12173]


Determination Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance 
Act of 1961 To Provide Military Assistance to Ukraine

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 506(a)(1) of the 
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (the ``Act'') (22 U.S.C. 2318(a)(1)) and 
Presidential Delegation of Authority dated May 3, 2023, I hereby 
determine that:
    <bullet> an unforeseen emergency exists which requires immediate 
military assistance to Ukraine; and
    <bullet> the emergency requirement cannot be met under the 
authority of the Arms Export Control Act or any other provision of law.
    I, therefore, pursuant to authority delegated to me by the 
President, direct the drawdown of up to $300 million in defense 
articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military 
education and training, under the authority of section 506(a)(1) of the 
Act to provide assistance to Ukraine. The Department of State will 
coordinate implementation of this drawdown.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 3, 2023.
Antony Blinken,
Secretary of State.

    Note:  This document was received for publication by the Office 
of the Federal Register on September 6, 2023.


[FR Doc. 2023-19579 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1241 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1241

 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth 
              to perform certain work with wood products.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 25, 2001

  Mr. Specter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to permit certain youth 
              to perform certain work with wood products.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION.

    Section 13(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 
213(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(6)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), in the administration and 
enforcement of the child labor provisions of this Act, it shall not be 
considered oppressive child labor for an individual who--
            ``(i) is under the age of 18 and over the age of 14, and
            ``(ii) by statute or judicial order is exempt from 
        compulsory school attendance beyond the eighth grade,
to be employed inside or outside places of business where machinery is 
used to process wood products.
    ``(B) The employment of an individual under subparagraph (A) shall 
be permitted--
            ``(i) if the individual is supervised by an adult relative 
        of the individual or is supervised by an adult member of the 
        same religious sect or division as the individual;
            ``(ii) if the individual does not operate or assist in the 
        operation of power-driven woodworking machines;
            ``(iii) if the individual is protected from wood particles 
        or other flying debris within the workplace by a barrier 
        appropriate to the potential hazard of such wood particles or 
        flying debris or by maintaining a sufficient distance from 
        machinery in operation; and
            ``(iv) if the individual is required to use personal 
        protective equipment to prevent exposure to excessive levels of 
        noise and saw dust.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 21

                 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF WARRANTECH CORPORATION

1. WARRANTECH CORPORTATION, INC. a Delaware corporation

2. WARRANTECH CONSUMER PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. a Connecticut corporation

3. WCPS OF FLORIDA, INC. a Florida corporation

4. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE, INC. a Connecticut corporation

5. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. a California corporation

6. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE RISK PURCHASING GROUP, INC. a Michigan corporation

7. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF FLORIDA, INC. a Florida corporation

8. WARRANTECH DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

9. WARRANTECH (UK) LIMITED a company incorporated in England

10. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation

11. WCPS OF CANADA, INC. a Connecticut corporation

12. WARRANTECH AUTOMOTIVE OF CANADA, INC. a Connecticut corporation

13. WARRANTECH EUROPE PLC a company incorporated in England

14. WARRANTECH ADDITIVE, INC. a Texas corporation

15. WARRANTECH HOME SERVICE COMPANY a Connecticut corporation

16. WARRANTECH CARIBBEAN LTD a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands

17. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY a Florida corporation

18. REPAIRMASTER CANADA, INC. a company incorporated in Canada

19. WCPS DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

20. WHSC DIRECT, INC. a Texas corporation

21. WARRANTECH HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY a Connecticut corporation

22. WARRANTECH INTERNATIONAL de CHILE a Company incorporated in Chile

23. VEMECO, INC. a Connecticut corporation

24. SUNBELT DEALER SERVICES, INC. a Delaware corporation.

25. Warrantech Management Company a Delaware corporation.

26. Warrantech Management Holding Company a Delaware corporation.
From: john.zitkus@att.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:56:57 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

John Zitkus

Mundelein, IL 60060
From: rojim7@optonline.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:30:38 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

james hogan

Wappingers Falls, NY 12590
From: pc@mansfieldnazarene.org

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:02:56 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Carlos Lonberger

Mansfield, IL 61854
No. 497, Misc.

#### Glover *v.*United States.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Miller, Beatrice Rosenberg*and *Robert G. Maysack*for the United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.0



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 Annual Report of Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003, as filed with Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald E. Kimbrough, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Acting Principal 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:



|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 30, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/    RONALD E.
KIMBROUGH
|                       |  |     |  |                            |  | Ronald E. Kimbrough Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer and Acting Principal Executive Officer)
#### Horton v. Parsons.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
EXHIBIT 31.1
 SELECT MEDICAL HOLDINGS CORPORATION
AND
SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Select Medical Holdings Corporation and
Select Medical Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Dated: November 12, 2010
    /s/ Robert A. OrtenzioRobert A. OrtenzioChief Executive Officer
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-15-00448-CV

PROPHET RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, EX REL., Appellant

V.

BIG STAR HONDA, JOHN DOE, ET AL., Appellees

Appeal from the 295th District Court of Harris County

(Tr. Ct. No. 2015-08974).

This case is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on April 29, 2015. 

After inspecting the record of the court below, it is the opinion of this Court that it has no 

jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and 

ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that costs be taxed against appellant.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered November 19, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
#### Watson Sanford, Appellant, v. The Bowery National Bank and others, Respondents.

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                Certification of the Principal Financial Officer
                       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 A.B.  Watley  Group  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the six months ended March 31, 2002,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert
Malin,  the  Principal  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  certifies,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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/ Robert Malin
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Robert Malin
                                              Principal Financial Officer
                                              Date: April 15, 2003


                                      -29-
<PAGE>
No. 271.

#### Davis, Trustee, *v.*Soja, Internal Revenue Agent.

*Walter J. Rockier*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General Cox*for respondent.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari granted.
From: sninny@wwt.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:19:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

shelly ninneman

Wilson, WI 54027
No. 405.

#### United States *v.*Pioneer American Insurance Co. et al.

*Solicitor General Cox, Assistant Attorney General Oberdorfer, Joseph Kovner*and *George F. Lynch*for the United States.

Supreme Court of Arkansas. Certiorari granted.
No. 238, Misc.

#### Read *v.*Colorado.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Duke W. Dunbar,*Attorney General of Colorado, *Frank E. Hickey,*Deputy Attorney General, and *J. F. Brauer,*Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Supreme Court of Colorado. Certiorari denied.