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

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. ss 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

|I, Mark Jarvis, certify that:
|-----------------------------
|                             
|1.                           
|                             
|2.                           
|                             
|3.                           
|                             
|4                            
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             
|5.                           
|                             
|                             
|                             
|                             

Date: April 28, 2014

|Mark
      Jarvis                      | 
|---------------------------------------- | 
|Signature: Mark Jarvis                   | 
|Title: CEO (Principal Executive Officer) | 

---
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00431-CR

ROLAND POMPA GARZA A/K/A JUAN 

GARCIA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 396th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1516759D)

April 16, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
[Pennexx Foods, Inc. Letterhead]








December 30, 2002



Mr. C. Larry Pope
President and Chief Operating Officer Smithfield Foods, Inc.
200 Commerce Street
Smithfield, Virginia 23430

Dear Mr. Pope:

                  This letter agreement is intended to memorialize certain
agreements and understandings we have reached in connection with our entering
into that certain Second Amendment to Credit Agreement, of even date herewith,
among Pennexx Foods, Inc. and Smithfield Foods, Inc. (the "Amendment").
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning given such
terms in that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of June 27, 2001, among
Pinnacle Foods, Inc. (now known as Pennexx Foods, Inc.) and Smithfield Foods,
Inc. (as amended, the "Credit Agreement").

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Compliance.
-------------------------------------

                  Pennexx  hereby agrees to provide to  Smithfield  from time to
time, upon Smithfield's  reasonable request therefor,  a certificate executed by
Pennexx's  principal financial officer containing such information as Smithfield
may reasonably  require in order for  Smithfield to comply with its  obligations
under  Sections 302 and 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and any rules or
regulations promulgated in connection therewith.

Operations Lease Guaranty.
--------------------------

                  Provided  that no Default and no Event of Default has occurred
under the Credit  Agreement,  Smithfield  hereby  agrees that it will  provide a
guaranty of Pennexx's obligations under the Tabor Road Operating Leases (as such
term is defined  in the  Amendment),  subject  to (i) the  payment by Pennexx to
Smithfield  of a  guaranty  fee  equal  to 2.0% of the  aggregate  amount  to be
guaranteed,  (ii) the payment by Pennexx to Smithfield of all proceeds  received
by Pennexx from the lessors under the Tabor Road  Operating  Leases (which shall
be applied  against  outstanding  amounts owed under the Credit  Agreement)  and
(iii) Smithfield's  approval of the lease and guaranty documents,  such approval
not to he unreasonably withheld.

<PAGE>


                  If the foregoing accurately reflects your understanding of our
agreement, please execute this letter agreement below.

PENNEXX FOODS, INC.



    /s/ Michael D. Queen
        -----------------
By:     Michael D. Queen
Its:     President



Seen and Agreed to
as of December 30, 2002

SMTTHFIELD FOODS, INC.



    /s/ C. Larry Pope
        --------------
By:      C. Larry Pope
Its:     President and Chief Operating Officer
No. 53940.

#### Frank Tea & Spice Co. *v.*United States,

protests 136035-K and 136036-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the merchandise consists of laurel leaves similar in all material respects to those the subject of *The Levy & Levis Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(23 Cust. Ct. 8, C. D. 1180), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Report on Management's Assertion on Compliance
              With the Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
             Uniform Single Attestation Program For Mortgage Bankers

                        Report of Independent Accountants


The Audit Committee
PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

We have examined  management's  assertion,  included in the accompanying  report
titled  Report of  Management,  that  Midland  Loan  Services,  Inc.  (MLS),  an
indirectly  wholly-owned  subsidiary  of PNC  Financial  Services  Group,  Inc.,
complied with the minimum servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
(USAP)  except for  commercial  loan and  multifamily  loan  servicing,  minimum
servicing  standards V.4 and VI.1.,  which the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing  during the year ended
December 31, 2000.  Management is  responsible  for MLS'  compliance  with those
requirements.  Our  responsibility  is to express  an  opinion  on  management's
assertions about MLS' compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established by
the  American  Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants  and,  accordingly,
included examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about MLS' compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered  necessary in
the circumstances.  We believe that our examination  provides a reasonable basis
for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on MLS'
compliance with specified requirements.

In  our  opinion,   management's   assertion,   that  MLS   complied   with  the
aforementioned  requirements  during the year ended December 31, 2000, is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

                                                         /s/ Ernst  & Young, LLP

January 31, 2001

                                       9
**GAO-02-114R**                      Published: Oct 22, 2001. Publicly Released: Oct 22, 2001.                  

-   
-   
-   
-   

    Jump To:  
-  Elder Abuse 
-  Services for Older Adults 
-  State and Local-Level Drivers and Trends 
-  State and Local Fiscal Projections 
-  Federal Borrowing 
-  Managing the Debt 
-  Summary of Funding Provisions 
-  Auditing the Government's Books 
-  Unpacking the Financial Report 
-  Highlights 
-  Recommendations 
-  Background 
-  About This Work 
-  About This Work 
-  Trends 
-  About the Center 
-  Why It's High Risk 
-  What Remains To Be Done 
-  Key Reports 
-  Newest COVID-Related Reports 
-  AI Use Cases 
-  Flood Insurance 
-  Past Pandemic-Related Reports 
-  CARES Act Oversight Reports 
-  All COVID-19 Reports 
-  Report Suspected Fraud 
-  Subjects 
-  How to Get Notified 
-  Past Reports 
-  Public Health Threats 
-  Explore the FY 2022 and 2023 Funds 
-  Status of FY22 Projects 
-  Lessons Learned 
-  Agency Reports 
-  Recent Reports 
-  Recommendations 
-  Supplemental Material 
-  Full Report 
-  Additional Data 
-  View Decision 
-  Downloads 
-  Previously Identified Actions 
-  Related Pages 
-  Associated Agencies 
-  Tough Choices and Opportunities Ahead 
-  Americas Fiscal Future Key Areas 
-  Retirement Security Key Areas 
-  Current List 
-  About The High Risk List 
-  Area Ratings 
-  Previous High Risk Products 
-  Search Federal Vacancies 
-  Past Federal Vacancies 
-  Violation Letters 
-  About the Yellow Book 
-  Advisory Council 
-  Related Resources 
-  Comment Letters 
-  Related Publications 
-  Contacts and Resources 
-  Major Issues Facing the Nation 
-  Meeting Strategic Challenges 
-  Additional Resources 
-  Resources 
-  GAO Contacts 
-  Mission Teams 
-  Operations and Staff Offices  
-  Organization Chart  
-  Why a Career at GAO? 
-  Am I Qualified? 
-  Company Culture 
-  Reasonable Accommodations 
-  Video Gallery 
-  Paid Internships 
-  Student Volunteers 
-  Professional Development Program 
-  Advancement 
-  Executive Candidate Program 
-  Summer Associates 
-  Externships 
-  Benefits 
-  Contacts 

Skip to Highlights

## Highlights

The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 allows Haitian nationals and their dependents to apply to adjust their status to legal permanent residence. The act requires the Comptroller General to report every six months on the number of Haitian nationals who have applied and been approved for legal permanent residence status. GAO found that, as of September 30, 2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service had received 35,946 applications and had approved 5,072 of them. The Executive Office for Immigration Review had 107 applications filed and had approved 87 of them.

## Full Report

Full Report (4 pages)

## Office of Public Affairs

### Media Inquiries

Sarah Kaczmarek
kaczmareks@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

### Public Inquiries

Public Affairs
PublicAffairs@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

## Topics

Justice and Law Enforcement

CitizenshipDependentsImmigrantsImmigration and naturalization lawImmigration information systemsImmigrationPermanent residencyPolitical asylumNaturalizationImmigration status
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO.  2-04-014-CV

DAVID L. KIEFER	APPELLANT

	V.

TERRY L. KIEFER	APPELLEE

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

	FROM THE 322ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant David L. Kiefer attempts to appeal the trial court’s protective order in his pending divorce case.  We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

	On January 7, 2004, the trial court entered a family violence protective order.  In the order, the trial court expressly found that the petition for divorce was pending.  Appellant filed a notice of appeal on January 12.  On February 18January 20, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the trial court’s order is not a final judgment and informed appellant that the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.  We have not received any response.  

	Generally, appellate jurisdiction exists only in cases in which a final judgment has been rendered that disposes of all issues and parties in the case.  See Jack B. Anglin Co. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 268 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); Houston Health Clubs, Inc. v. First Court of Appeals, 722 S.W.2d 692, 693 (Tex. 19868) (orig. proceeding).  The Texas Legislature has, however, authorized the appeal of several types of interlocutory orders, none of which is at issue here.  See, e.g., Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 15.003, 51.014, 171.098 (Vernon Supp. 2004); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 1205.068 (Vernon 2000).1  It is fundamental error for an appellate court to assume jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal that is not expressly authorized by statute.  See N.Y. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 799 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. 1990); Jani-King, Inc. v. Yates, 965 S.W.2d 665, 666-67 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.).

	A protective order rendered during post-divorce proceedings that disposes of all issues and parties in the underlying proceeding is final and appealable. Winsett v. Edgar, 22 S.W.3d 509, 509 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1999, no pet.). However, a protective order rendered during the pendency of the parties’ divorce is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal.  In re K.S.LC.-C., 109 S.W.3d 577, 579-80 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2003, no pet.); Bilyeu v. Bilyeu, 86 S.W.3d 278, 282 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

	Because the protective order entered during the pending divorce is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

							ANNE GARDNERPER CURIAM

							JUSTICE

PANEL D:	GARDNER, WALKER, and McCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED:   March 18, 2004
No. 57613.

#### Amicale Trading Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 159290-K, etc. (New York).

*298Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that for duty purposes the clean content of the wool in question was determined in accordance with the instructions contained in T. D. 53159. Said T. D. 53159 was issued following the decision in *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*v. *United States*(27 Cust. Ct. 168, C. D. 1365), affirmed in *United States*v. *Fred Whitaker Company, Inc.*(40 C. C. P. A. 19, C. A. D. 492), wherein the statutory language, clean content of wool, as used in paragraph 1102 (b), was construed to mean the product commercially usable as wool and from which all the weight of grease and foreign material has been removed, including the wool fibers which are unavoidably and irrevocably lost as a result of commercially applied cleaning processes. Accordingly, the wool in question was held dutiable at the rate applied by the collector on the basis of the percentages of clean content as set forth in the column headed “T. D. 53159 Clean Content” in the schedule attached to and made a part of the decision in this case.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2738

_____________________________
R OBBIE G LENN M URPHY , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Marianne L. Aho , Judge

. June 11, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
M AKAR , O STERHAUS , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna Aurica Mauer, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee
, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sh aron Traxler, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Human Pheromone Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, William P. Horgan and Gregory S. Fredrick 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 results of operations of the Company.







/s/ William P. Horgan

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)

May 14, 2007



/s/ Gregory S. Fredrick

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)

May 14, 2007
# C_2015337EN.01003302.xml

| 12.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/33

---

Action brought on 11 August 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

(Case T-465/15)

(2015/C 337/35)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ehab Makhlouf (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

| — | Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently, annul Decision (CFSP) 2015/837 of 28 May 2015 and the subsequent measures implementing it, in so far as they relate to the applicant;

| — | Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant raises three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-432/11 in Makhlouf v Council
   (1).

Makhlouf

Council

1

---

(1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.

1

---
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
Pegasus Wireless Corp.
File No. 000-32567



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


In connection  with the Annual Report of Pegasus  Wireless Corp. (the "Company")
on  Transition  Form 10-KSB for the six months ended  December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I, Alex Tsao,  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:

     (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.


Dated: March 2, 2006    By:  /s/Alex Tsao
                        ----------------------------------------
                         Alex Tsao
                         Chief Executive Officer






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

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IRENE and FRANKLIN SIMMONS, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4164

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04164-LP Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 

18, 2018.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-16-00901-CV

TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF TEXAS, Appellant 

V.

MARGUERITE TAMASY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 127th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2015-71050 

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed October 18, 2016. On October 8, 

2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Wise.
No. 57904.

protest 218420-K (New York).

#### Horace A. Fuld, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protest was dismissed.
United States Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

Science & Technology

Pesticide Data Program

Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993












Pesticide Data Program - Annual Summary Calendar Year 1993

7

Table 1. Samples Collected Per Commodity by Each Participating State

 Commodity

State AP










APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED
APPENDIX B. DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDUES DETECTED



Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)
Sample Percentiles

Concentration - (parts per million)
ND *
ND *

ND *
ND *
ND *
ND *


ND *
ND *
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

APPLES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # %

APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

GRAPES 
APPENDIX F. MULTIPLE PESTICIDE RESIDUES DETECTED

ORANGES 

No. of Residues Samples No. of Different 3 Most Frequently Detected

Detected / Sample # % Residues Pesticides (*)
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity
APPENDIX G. TOLERANCE VIOLATIONS REPORTED

Commodity
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WAMBI COOK :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4237

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04237-SD Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1