alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


        In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kenneth T. White, Jr., the
Chief Executive Officer of W-H Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, to my knowledge, 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/  Kenneth T. White, Jr.
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Name: Kenneth T. White, Jr.
                                    Date: August 5, 2004


This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
[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(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****PTO strategic informationtechnology plan, fiscal years ... executive overview.**
 
1997-2002 | 1997-2003
 
SuDoc Number:C 21.2:IN 3/3/
Item Number:0254
CGP systemNumber:000485166
 
February 18, 2020
854098.36.01 10/18/02 10:11 AM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ESPERANZA VARGAS and :

EUGENE VARGAS : CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-4172

:

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-04172-LDD Document 9 Filed 10/21/2002 Page 1 of 1
NotesFAQContact Us

Collection

Thesaurus
AdvancedSearch Tips

Collection

Thesaurus
BrowseThesaurus

 Download full text

**ERIC Number:**

**Record Type:**

**Publication Date:**

**Pages:**

**Abstractor:**

**ISBN:**

**ISSN:**

**EISSN:**

AchievementCurriculum DevelopmentElementary Secondary EducationEqual EducationGender IssuesMathematics EducationProfessional DevelopmentSex Differences

**Publication Type:**

**Education Level:**

**Audience:**

**Language:**

**Sponsor:**

**Authoring Institution:**

**Grant or Contract Numbers:**

PrivacyCopyrightContact UsSelection PolicyAPI
JournalsNon-JournalsDownloadSubmitMultimediaWidget
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00459-CV

In the Interest of L.M.F., a Child §

§

§

§

From the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323-93369J-10)

May 29, 2014

Per Curiam

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 

PER CURIAM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>                                    5
<MULTIPLIER>                                 1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                      SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                            1,717
<SECURITIES>                                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                     12,413
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      68
<INVENTORY>                                                       12,529
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                  27,179
<PP&E>                                                            204,290
<DEPRECIATION>                                                    29,758
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    208,038
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                             12,852
<BONDS>                                                           133,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                             0
<PREFERRED>                                                       0
<COMMON>                                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        61,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      208,038
<SALES>                                                           82,268
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  82,268
<CGS>                                                             73,358
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                     1,442
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                10,672
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                   (3,014)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                               (3,014)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                   0
<CHANGES>                                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                                      (3,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Robert P. Hughes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TenFold Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) 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 my
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;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my
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

(c) 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 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(s) 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 registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

(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.



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert P. Hughes                                                                   
|Robert P. Hughes                                                                       
|Chief Financial Officer and Chief of Staff (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
|November 1, 2007
# C_2016251EN.01000502.xml

| 11.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche (Italy) lodged on 8 April 2016 — Commune di Loro Piceno and Others v Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

(Case C-197/16)

(2016/C 251/07)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per le Marche

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comune di Loro Piceno, Marcello Bartolini, Filippo Bruè, Sergio Forti, Stefano Piatti, Gaetano Silvetti, Gianfranco Silvetti, Rocco Tirabasso, Sante Vagni, Albergo Ristorante Le Grazie Sas di Forti Sergio & Co., Suolificio Elefante Srl, Suolificio Roxy Srl, Aldo Alessandrini

Applicant:

Defendants: Provincia di Macerata, Provincia di Macerata Settore 10 — Ambiente

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

On a constructive interpretation of Article 191 TFEU and Article 2 of Directive 2011/92/EU, (1) is it compatible with EU law to proceed with the verification of whether an environmental impact assessment needs to be undertaken (and possibly thereafter to carry out an environmental impact assessment) after the construction of the plant where the consent has been annulled by the national court due to a failure to verify whether the environmental impact assessment was needed, because such a verification had been excluded on the basis of a national law which was contrary to EU law?

1

---

(1)  Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1).

1

---
E NEY GENE-L 

OFTEXAS 

GERALD C. MANN 

Acxwrxiu 11. TEXAS 

ATTORNEYC3ENERAX. 

Honorable J. 0. Loftln, President 

Texas College of Arts and Industries 

Kingsville, Texas 

Dear Mr. Lof'cin: Opinion No. O-2992 

Re: Whether or not a person simultaneously may serve on the 

Board of Directors of the 

Texas College of Arts and Industries and at the same time 

serve as the County Superintendent of Public Instruction 

of a county in Texas with a 

population of 13,305. 

We acknowlege receipt of your letter of December 21, 

1940, propounding for a legal opinion the following question: 

"May a person simultaneously serve on the 

Board of ,Directors of the Texas College of Arts 

and Industries and at the same time serve as the 

County Superintendent of Public Instruction of a 

county In Texas with a population of 13,305?" 

Your inquiry should be answered In the affirmative. 

Section 33 of Article XVI of the Constitution 

vides: 

"The accounting officers of this State shall 

neither draw nor pay a warrant upon the treasury 

in favor of any person, for salary or compensation 

as agent, officer or appointee, who holds at the 

same time any other office or position of honor, 

trust or profit, under this State or the United 

States, except as prescribed in this Constitution. 

Provided, that this restriction as to the drawlng and paying of warrants upon the treasury shall 

not apply to officers of the National Guard of 

Texas, the National Guard Reserve, the Officers 

Reserve Corps of the United States, nor to enlisted 

men of the National Guard, the National Guard 

Reserve 

States.b 

and the Organized Reserves of the United 

pro- 
Honorable J. 0. Loftin, page 2 O-2991 

Assuming, as we do, that the office of County Superintendent of Public Instruction has been lawfully created in the 

county to which you refer, it necessarily follows that the lncumbent of such office holds an office or position of honor, 

trust, or profit, under this State, within the meaning of the 

above-quoted constitutional provision. 

The same thing may be said of the office or position of 

a member of the Board of Directors of the Texas College of Arts 

and Industries, so that this office likewise falls within the 

scope of the provision quoted. 

Our answer above given Is subject to this qualification: 

The Board member would not be entltled to receive compensation 

from the State for his services as such member. 

The matter is controlled by our Opinion No. O-1422, to 

which you refer in your letter, wherein we held that a member 

of the Board of Directors of the Texas College of Arts and Industries could at the same time serve as a member of the Board of 

Trustees of an independent school district, but in doing so he 

would forfeit all right to any compensation to which he might 

have been entitled as a member of the Board of Directors. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Ocie Speer 

Ocie Speer 

Assistant 

OS--MR--WC 

APPROVED 

s/Gerald 

JAN 6, 1941 

C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile 

 Systems

)

)

ASBCA Nos. 59439, 59440, 59441

)

Under Contract No. W15P7T-07-C-P207 et al. )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Karen L. Manos, Esq. 

John W. F. Chesley, Esq. 

Katherine J. King, Esq.

 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

 Washington, DC

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Alexander M. Healy, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Hanscom AFB, MA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 14, 2021

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 59439, 59440, 59441, Appeals of 

Raytheon Company and Raytheon Missile Systems, rendered in conformance with the 

Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 15, 2021

CHERYL L. SCOTT

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
IPAC Operational Metrics for July 2018

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount % of Total Dollar Amount! Number of Transactions % of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (Investment & Borrowing) 15,980,046,533,061 99.49% 13,231 11.07%
Buy/Sell 74,855,749,239 0.47%! 104,846 87.74%
Benefits (RITS) 6,719,171,378 0.04% 581 0.49%
Check Aftermath (TRACS) 113,535,025 0.00% 837 0.70%
Zero Dollar 0 0.00% 1 0.00%
Grand Total - July 2018 16,061,734,988,704 100.00% 119,496 100.00%
Grand Total - June 2018 17,116,040,722,017 100.00% 116,391 100.00%
June to July Change -1,054,305,733,313 3,105
Percentage Change 6.2% | 2.7%

Grand Total - July 2017

8,725,779,789,330

July 2017 to July 2018 Change

7,335,955,199,374

Percentage Change

84.1%

114,003

5,493

4.8%
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHESTER COUNTY HOSPITAL, : NO. 2:02-cv-02746-JRP

Plaintiff :

:

VS. :

:

INDEPENDENCE BLUE CROSS, et al.,:

Defendants :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of June , 2003, upo n

consideration of the Motion of Plaintiff The Chester County

Hospital for Leave to File its Reply Memorandum of Law in Support

of its Motion to Compel the Production of Documents by Defendant

Independence Blue Cross Under Seal, it is hereby ORDERED that the

Motion is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________________________

 CHARLES B. SMITH

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02746-JP Document 80 Filed 06/26/2003 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         114,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,095,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (77,218)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,219,230
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,550,484
<PP&E>                                         243,411
<DEPRECIATION>                               (168,580)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,031,073
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,539,290
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        726
<COMMON>                                         4,674
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,486,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,031,073
<SALES>                                      6,302,248
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,302,248
<CGS>                                        5,096,906
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,633,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               163,969
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             165,257
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (591,999)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (591,999)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (591,999)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
#### STEELE v. HUMPHREY, Warden.

No. 232.

United States District Court M. D. Pennsylvania.

Oct. 23, 1948.

Petitioner pro se.

No appearance for respondent, no rule having issued.

FOLLMER, District Judge.

This is petitioner’s second application for writ of habeas corpus in this district.1 The present petition raises one new ground not heretofore presented and determined and which is therefore being considered herein.2 Using his own language, his contention is, “The petitioner bases his complaint on the fact that he was discharged from the United States Army while serving a sentence adjudged by general courts-martial, that one day after the issue of discharge your petitioner was interned in a United States Federal Penitentiary; interned therein by the military authorities; on a military commitment warrant signed prior to discharge and separation from the Army and that the rulings of the Judge Advocate General of the United States Army has provided that once a discharge has been issued to a man in confinement it immediately terminates the remaining unexecuted portion of the sentence.”

This contention is without merit. Where a soldier in a court-martial proceeding has been sentenced to a term in the penitentiary, with a dishonorable discharge also imposed,3 he nevertheless as a person under sentence adjudged, by a court-martial, remains, pursuant to the provisions of Article of War 2, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1473, a person “subject to military law”,4 and such discharge dogs not terminate 'the prison sentence.

The ■ application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.

1

 On his previous application, Ex parte Steele, D.C.M.D.Pa., 79 F.Supp. 428, he was represented by counsel and he now has an appeal pending therein.

2

 Section 2244 New Federal. Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244.

3

 Petitioner was convicted under Article of War 92, 10 U.S.C.A. § 1564, and a dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence was proper. Manual for Courts-Martial, U. S. Army, 1928 (corrected to April 20, 1943) Page 92, Par. 103.

4

 Manual for Courts-Martial, U. S. Army, 1928 (corrected to April 20, 1943) Page 8, Par. 10. O’Malley v. Hiatt, D.C.M.D.Pa., 74 F.Supp. 44, 50; Hironimus v. Durant, 4 Cir., 168 F.2d 288.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1160 

To include Livingston County, the city of Jonesboro in Union County, and 

the city of Freeport in Stephenson County, Illinois, to the Lincoln National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2017 

Ms. DUCKWORTH (for herself and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To include Livingston County, the city of Jonesboro in Union 

County, and the city of Freeport in Stephenson County, 

Illinois, to the Lincoln National Heritage Area, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Abraham Lincoln Na5 tional Heritage Area Amendment Act’’. 

2 

•S 1160 IS

1 SEC. 2. ADJUSTMENT OF BOUNDARIES OF LINCOLN NA2 TIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

3 (a) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.—Section 443(b)(1) of 

4 the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 (Public 

5 Law 110–229; 16 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘, Livingston,’’ after ‘‘La7 Salle’’; and 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘, the city of Jonesboro in 

9 Union County, and the city of Freeport in Stephen10 son County’’ after ‘‘Woodford counties’’. 

11 (b) MAP.—The Secretary of the Interior shall update 

12 the map referred to in section 443(b)(2) of the Consoli13 dated Natural Resources Act of 2008 to reflect the bound14 ary adjustment made by the amendments in subsection (a) 

15 of this section. 

Æ
No. 61249.

protests 286131-K, etc. (New York).

#### Brian Fabrics Corp. and Airport Clearance Service et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of silk wearing apparel similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 *C.*C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IPAC Operational Metrics for January 2023

- Sheet1