alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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  In connection with the Report of FullCircle Registry, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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.   /s/ Norman L. Frohreich____________________ Norman L. Frohreich, Chief Executive Officer & Chief Financial Officer August 29, 2008
NUMBER 13-14-00469-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE STATE FARM LLOYDS, RICHARD FREYMANN,

CLIFF COPPEDGE, LARRY FAULKS, DELLA OAKLEY,

AND ERIC RECHARD JACKSON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion1 Per Curiam 

Relators, State Farm Lloyds, Richard Freymann, Cliff Coppedge, Larry Faulks, 

Della Oakley, and Eric Rechard Jackson, have filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

requesting that this Court direct respondent, the Honorable Rose Guerra Reyna, 

Presiding Judge of the 206th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, to withdraw her 

order denying relators’ verified plea in abatement and to enter an order abating the suit 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

for damages brought against relators by the real parties in interest, Leonardo Fuentes 

and Alma Fuentes, until sixty days after they provide relators with a notice letter for their 

claim stating the specific, separate amounts for the claimed damages and attorney’s fees. 

See TEX. INS. CODE ANN. § 541.154 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Prior Notice 

of Action”); id. § 541.155 (West, Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S.) (“Abatement”); TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.1 (“Commencement” of Original Proceedings). In addition, relators request 

that this Court issue immediate temporary relief staying respondent’s order denying the 

plea in abatement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10 (“Temporary Relief”). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus 

and the applicable law, is of the opinion that the petition for writ of mandamus should be 

denied for the reasons expressed in our opinion in In re State Farm Lloyds, Richard 

Freymann, and Nathan Burris, No. 13-14-00347-CV, 2014 WL _____ (Tex. App.—Corpus 

Christi Aug. 27, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), available at

http://www.search.txcourts.gov/case.aspx?cn=13-14-00348-CV. Accordingly, the Court 

DENIES the petition for writ of mandamus and request for immediate temporary relief. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d). 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

2nd day of September, 2014.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Javier Martinez Garcia, Appellant

No. 06-23-00026-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

22M1063CCL). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Rambin, Chief Justice 

Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment—not the 

sentence—by deleting the $6,000.00 DWI traffic fine. As modified, the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Javier Martinez Garcia, has adequately indicated his inability 

to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JULY 18, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

SCOTT E. STEVENS

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 111

To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine 
whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during 
World War II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the 
                 Missouri List, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 12, 2017

Mr. Heller (for himself and Ms. Hirono) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine 
whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during 
World War II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the 
                 Missouri List, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Filipino Veterans Promise Act''.

SEC. 2. DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN SERVICE IN PHILIPPINES DURING WORLD 
              WAR II.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and such military historians as the 
Secretary of Defense considers appropriate, shall establish a process 
to determine whether a covered individual served as described in 
subsection (a) or (b) of section 107 of title 38, United States Code, 
for purposes of determining whether such covered individual is eligible 
for benefits described in such subsections.
    (b) Covered Individuals.--For purposes of this section, a covered 
individual is any individual who--
            (1) claims service described in subsection (a) or (b) of 
        section 107 of title 38, United States Code; and
            (2) is not included in the Approved Revised Reconstructed 
        Guerilla Roster of 1948, known as the ``Missouri List''.
                                 <all>
```
January 231-d, 1939 

Mr. Karl Cayton, County Attorney 

Dawson-County 

Lamesa, Texas 

Dear Mr. Cagton Opinion No. O-194 

Re: Fees of County Tax AssessorCollector, collecting taxes 

for independent school districts. 

Your request for an opinion on the following question: 

-' 'hoes the County Tax Assessor-Collector who 

has been collecting taxes from some of the Independent School Districts have to turn in the percentages they allow him as fees or retain them 

personally?" 

has been received by this office. 

Article 3883, Revised Civil Statutes, provides in de- _- 

tail the maximum fees for all officers named therein and It was 

held in the case of Nichols vs. Galveston County, 228 S.W. 547, 

by the Supreme Court that the fees collected by an assessor for 

assessed independent school districts' taxes were accountable 

for under the maximum fee bill. 

Article 3891, Revised Civil Statutes, provides in effect 

the compensations, limitations and maximums of fees and salaries 

fixed by the maximum fee law for officers includes and applies 

to all fees and compensations whatever collected by said officers in their official capacity. 

It has been repeatedly held by the Attorney Generalus 

office that fees accruing to the tax assessor-collector who has 

collected taxes for independent school districts is'~required 

to account for said. compensation as fees of office and all excess fees should be deposited with the county treasurer. 

Trusting that the foregoing answers your inquiry, I 

remain 
Mr. Karl Cayton, January 23rd, 1939 Page 2 O-194 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/Ardell~ Williams 

Assistant 

AW:OB:wc 

APPROVED 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
No. 57202.

protests 197536-K and 197752-K (New York).

#### J. Ossola Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of peppers, pickled with vinegar, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *E. J. Petrosemolo Co., Inc.,*and *Barian Shipping Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 159, C. D. 1461), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.1



SouthTrust Bank, N.A.
One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia  30308



August 9, 2000


Mr. David L. Gamsey
Chief Financial Officer
Innotrac Corporation
6655 Sugarloaf Parkway
Duluth, Georgia  30097

Dear David:

In response to your request, SouthTrust Bank grants a modification/waiver and
consent of the outlined covenants contained in the Amended Loan and Security
Agreement between Innotrac Corporation and SouthTrust Bank:

12.2      Tangible Net Worth
          ------------------

Currently this covenant requires that tangible net worth shall increase annually
over the amount as of the prior fiscal year end.  The waiver of this covenant is
for Fiscal Year 2000.  The modification also specifically allows the exclusion
of the affect of the special charge the company took in June, 2000, from future
calculations for this covenant.

12.3      Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio
          ---------------------------

Currently, this covenant requires that the Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio be at
least 1.2:1 at the end of each fiscal quarter, on a rolling four quarters basis.
The waiver of this covenant is for Fiscal Year 2000.  The modification also
specifically allows the exclusion of the affect of the special charge the
company took in June, 2000, from future calculations for this covenant.


13.5      Stock Redemptions
          -----------------

Currently, the purchase or redemption of stock is restricted if there is an
Event of Default.  Given the covenant violations mentioned herein, we have
obtained a waiver of this covenant to permit the $5,000,000 stock buy-back
currently approved by your Board of Directors.

13.6      Restricted Investment
          ---------------------

Currently, this covenant restricts investments except for normal business
purposes or for investment in certain securities or accounts.  The waiver of
this covenant allows for the restricted investments made previously this year.
The modification allows that a single restricted investment of up to $10 million
in any one company/venture may be made during any fiscal year, and the total of
all restricted investments made during any fiscal year will not exceed $15
million, without prior approval of SouthTrust Bank.

<PAGE>
The Bank will not impose our normal fee for these waivers and modifications.
However, in consideration of the contemplated change in the need and usage of
the Revolving Credit Facility, the Bank will require an unused fee of one
quarter of one percent (1/4%) per annum, payable quarterly.  This will begin on
September 1, 2000.

I hope you find that this accommodation provides you with an assurance of our
commitment to you as a customer and that it allows you the flexibility you need
to continue with your business plans.  Should you need anything further, please
let me know.



Sincerely,


/s/ Noble Jones
Noble Jones
Vice President

cc:  Kenneth W. Deere



ACKNOWLEDGMENT                     Date:     8/14/00

By:  /s/ David L. Gamsey

It's:  SVP & CFO
No. 55851.

protests 165275-K, etc. (New York).

#### Albert Bonnier Publishing House, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6535

ERIC ADAM GREEN , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. GARY MCFADDEN, Mecklenburg County Sheriff; MECKLENBURG SHERIFF DEPARTMENT; MICHAEL A KOLB, Attorney at Law; W. ROBERT BELL, Senior Judge , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. ( 3:21

- cv - 00025

- MR )

Submitted : October 28, 2021 Decided: November 3, 2021

Before DIAZ and RICHARDSON , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Eric Adam Green, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Eric Adam Green appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A , 1915(e). We have reviewed the rec ord and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
Green v. McFadden , No. 3:21

- cv - 00025

- MR (W.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequatel y presented in the
materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
No. 51303.

#### Protests 109505-K/91504, etc., of Morris, Mann & Reilly, Inc., et al. (Chicago, etc.).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016027EN.01006001.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/60

---

Action brought on 9 October 2015 — GABO:mi v Commission

(Case T-588/15)

(2016/C 027/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: GABO:mi Gesellschaft für Ablauforganisation:milliarium mbH & Co. KG (München, Germany) (represented by: M. Ahlhaus and C. Mayer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the contested decisions to be void; and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the contested decisions to be void; and

| — | order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear all costs including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decisions of the Commission, contained in the e-mail of 29 July 2015 and in the letters of 19 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3466903) and of 28 August 2015 (Ref. Ares(2015)3557576), to suspend all payments to the applicant related to FP7 grants managed by the defendant’s Directorate E, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No 602299 regarding Project EU-CERT-ICD and FP7 Grant Agreement No. 260777 regarding project HIP-Trial and Directorate F, i.e. FP7 Grant Agreement No. 312117 regarding project BIOFECTOR.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are not covered by Article II.5(3)(d) of Annex II to the FP7 Grant Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are not covered by Article II.5(3)(d) of Annex II to the FP7 Grant Agreement.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions do not meet the applicable formal and procedural requirements and are vitiated by infringement of principles of good governance.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s true intention is to enforce an illegitimate set-off rather than impose precautionary measures. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant’s true intention is to enforce an illegitimate set-off rather than impose precautionary measures.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on illegitimate discretionary decisions of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are based on illegitimate discretionary decisions of the defendant.

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Fifth plea in law, alleging that the contested decisions are vitiated on violations of the principle of proportionality.

---
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

THOMAS PATRICK WALSH

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 746

[ December 17, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; Charles Schwab , Judge; L.T. Case No. 2017CF000092A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant

Publilc Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber,

Assistant At torney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., M AY and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
(Reap. Dec. 10944)

#### Hemisphere Int’l Corp. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3858.

(Decided April 8, 1965)

*Sharp & Bogan*for tlie plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court:

> 1. That the subject merchandise consists of hardboard exported from Sweden as to which the Secretary of the Treasury issued a finding of dumping, published in 89 TD 197, TD 53567, made pursuant to the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. 160, et seep).

> 2. That pursuant to Section 168 of said Antidumping Act, the appraiser reported the purchase price (Sec. 162) and the foreign market value (Sec. 164) as to the merchandise listed on Schedule A attached hereto and made a part hereof.

> 3. That pursuant to Sections 500 and 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, the appraiser appraised all of the merchandise in the appeals for appraisement enumerated on Schedule A for regular duty purposes.

> 4. That the plaintiff duly filed appeals for reappraisement as to the values referred to in the above paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3.

> *6115. That at the times relevant herein the purchase price and the foreign market value under the said Antidumping Act are as specified in the aforesaid Schedule A attached hereto.

> 6. That as to all other items of merchandise not identified on Schedule A, the appraiser’s reports of purchase price and of foreign market value are correct.

> 7. That the appraiser’s findings of value under the provisions of Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, are correct.

> 8. That said appeals are submitted for decision upon this stipulation and said Schedule A.

Upon the agreed facts, I find foreign market value, as defined in section 164 of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. § 164), for the merchandise described in schedule A, attached to and made a part of this decision, and the purchase price thereof, within section 162 of said act (19 U.S.C. § 162), to be as specified in said schedule A.

As to all other items of merchandise not identified in schedule A, I find the foreign market values and purchase prices to be as reported by the appraiser.

In all other respects, the values of all merchandise are as returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Duke Capital LLC (Duke Capital) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven K. Young, Chief Financial Officer and Controller of Duke Capital, 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 Duke Capital.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN K. YOUNG                                                  
|Steven K. Young Chief
Financial Officer and Controller November 14, 2005
No. 52497.

protest 102799-K (New York).

#### Toa Kigyo Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing nothing to disturb the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 World Gaming plc (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Naismith, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



/s/ David Naismith
___________________________
David Naismith
Chief Financial Officer
April 4, 2004