alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorablc F. L. Lassie 

county AuOit or 

Wilbarser County 

Vernon, Taxas 

Dear Eirt~ 

A 

an opinion by thir departm 

-The ae88ione 

has been oonfro 

*ah a 00naitiOh v&at 

e’y take to ebbcain and 

0 part au8 or ~a0iinquent 

a property pleas& on the roll8 

and In a, tax bearIn@ oo~ltion?~ 

stion which you have subaitted to us Is 

vsrp broad ir? its aoops and nature ana we will not attempt 

to answer it speolfloall~. 

Re are enoloslng sopiaa of our opinions nwhiea 

O-930, O-1342, O-1462 and O-1043, whloh we believe will be 

of help and assidtanoe to you. There opinions are a8lfs~lanatory and will not be elaborated upon hera* 

!’ 
Ssotlon 5 of Art:ele 1345-b, Vernon'n Civil UtatutsB af Tmab, provide8 t&t qmn the trial of a tax suit 

tba court may hear 8tlamo~ and make a rlnaing a@ a gnrt 

sf the judgreent, of the renmnab2o fair valid for WljU4~06 

omlue") of the 9~096rt~ 8~ of the date of tbc trial whloh 

Yaajuagaa oaluen ahall *not naoaeearily be the raloe at tho 

$ime the asseaaxent of the tawra8 mado.c Our eonienaoo 

@9lnian ITo. 3098, a 009~ of whloh 18 enolosed, disoruoer 

the tax year8, uhloh 8814 seatian 18 ap9lloablo. W thiak 

thiB ~rorlstoa of the Itstuto might aor& a mean8 of rrl~lof 

ln ruoh oa888 a8 are ~for~d to in faur inquiry. 

Yotrrr rory truly 

Harold ~0Ora~~ 

A88tiburb 

BylxaI 

lcNo5oBoR1cs
# C_2014071EN.01003201.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30.9.2013 BP v FRA

(Case F-38/12) (1)

(Civil service - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Member of the contract staff - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2014/C 71/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights not to renew the applicant’s contract as a member of the contract staff and of the decision to transfer the applicant to another department of the Agency, and a claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that BP shall bear all her own costs and orders her to pay all costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that BP shall bear all her own costs and orders her to pay all costs incurred by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 12.5.2012 p. 37.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00240-CV

HECKMANN WATER RESOURCES (CVR), INC.,

Appellant

v.

Jose Luis Aguilar, Individually, Eudelia Aguilar, Individually, Vanessa Arce, Individually, 

Jose Luis AGUILAR, Individually, Eudelia Aguilar, Individually, Vanessa Arce, Individually, 

Eudelia Aguilar and Vanessa Arce as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Carlos Aguilar, 

Deceased, et al.,

Appellees

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Dimmit County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12-06-11697-DCVCLM

Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 13, 2014

TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE AND REMAND

The parties have filed a joint motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment and remand the 

cause to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement 

agreement. We grant the motion. The trial court’s judgment dated January 7, 2014 and Amended 

Final Judgment dated April 1, 2014 are hereby set aside without regard to the merits and the cause 

is remanded to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement 
04-14-00240-CV

agreement. TEX.R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Costs of appeal are taxed against the party who incurred 

them. 

PER CURIAM

- 2 -
# C_2013026EN.01002302.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/23

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 31 October 2012 — Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

(Case C-485/12)

2013/C 26/44

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Maatschap T. van Oosterom en A. van Oosterom-Boelhouwer

Applicants:

Defendants: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a physical inspection in the field will always need to take place before it can be decided on the basis of aerial photographs taken in connection with the assessment of a declaration that the declaration submitted by a farmer is inaccurate?

1

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ 2004 L 141, p. 18).

1

---
ADDENDUM

This Addendum ("Addendum") to that certain Agreement for
Purchase and Sale of Assets between AMS Acquisition Corp. ("Seller")
and Affiliated Marketing Services, Inc. ("Purchaser") dated December
31, 1998 (the "Agreement") is executed this 13th day of January,
1999.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11 of the Agreement, the Closing
is scheduled to take place on January 11, 1999;

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.2 of the Agreement, Purchaser is
required to provide certain documentation to Seller and Purchaser
has informed Seller that Purchaser requires several days following
the Closing to create and produce the documents required therein;

WHEREAS, the Parties hereto agree that the Closing should be
effective as of January 11, 1999 but that it should not be
consummated until such time as Purchaser delivers the Exhibits to
the Agreement and the documents required by Section 8.2 thereof;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreement contained herein, the Parties agree as follows:

1.  Purchaser shall use his best efforts to create and deliver
to Seller the Exhibits to the Agreement and the documents
required by Section 8.2 thereof, and for purposes of
creating those Exhibits and documents the effective date
of the closing shall be January 11, 1999.

2.  The actual Closing of the contemplated transaction and the
parties obligations under the Agreement shall not happen
until Purchaser has delivered, to Seller's satisfaction as
to the form, accuracy, and completeness thereof, the items
referenced in Paragraph 1 hereof.

3.  In the event that Purchaser has not delivered the items
referenced in Paragraph 1 hereof to Seller's satisfaction
by January 25, 1999, then the Agreement shall be declared
canceled.

The Parties hereto hereby agree to the foregoing and execute
this Addendum as of the date first written above.

"Purchaser"                                     "Seller"

Affiliated Marketing Services, Inc.             AMS Acquisition Corp.


/s/ Paul Hentschl                               /s/ Joseph Naughton
By:  Paul Hentschl                             By:  Joseph Naughton
Its: President                                 Its: Chief Executive Officer
```

[115th Congress Public Law 207]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

Public Law 115-207
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 3585 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, as the ``Marvin 
       Gaye Post Office''. <<NOTE: July 24, 2018 -  [H.R. 1496]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MARVIN GAYE POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3585 South Vermont Avenue in Los Angeles, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Marvin Gaye Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Marvin Gaye 
Post Office''.

    Approved July 24, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1496:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            May 7, considered and passed House.
            June 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
34137.

#### GLASS v. GLASS.

Per curiam.

Carl Glass, formerly husband of appellee Elydia A. Glass, appeals from an order of the Richmond County Superior Court which awarded Mrs. Glass support monies, attorney fees, and periodic alimony.

His three enumerations of error all assert that the court had no personal jurisdiction over him which would support an in personam judgment. Mrs. Glass acknowledges that he is a nonresident of Georgia. However, Mr. Glass filed a traverse to her prejudgment garnishment proceeding instituted in this same case; he appeared at the courthouse when the traverse was heard, and though he had earlier been served by publication, Mrs. Glass served him again personally at the courthouse.

Mr. Glass argues here that his presence in the state was solely to defend this action, thus rendering the service invalid. This, of course, raises a fact issue.

The trial court held a hearing on Mr. Glass’ motion to dismiss the complaint and quash the service, following which the court found as a fact that personal service had been legally perfected. Mr. Glass challenges this conclusion, but in his notice of appeal he stated that "A transcript of evidence will not be filed for inclusion in the record on appeal.”

Lacking a transcript of the evidence considered by the trial court, we must assume that his findings of fact were supported by the evidence. Mr. Glass has, therefore, *737failed to show error in the trial court’s ruling that the facts adduced at the hearing showed that service was not improper for any reason alleged. The judgment against Mr. Glass must stand.

Submitted October 13, 1978

Decided December 5, 1978

Rehearing denied December 19, 1978.

*Surrett, Thompson, Bell, Choate & Walker, John C. Bell, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Harris, McCracken, Pickett & Jackson, William R. McCracken,*for appellee.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### MIDSTATES RESOURCES CORP., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Wayne ROWLAND, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 74997.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 22, 1999.

*586Thomas J. Fritzlen, Jr., Martin, Leigh & Laws, P.C., Kansas City, for respondent.

Walter S. Drusch, Lowes *&*Drusch, Cape Girardeau, for appellant.

Before PAUL J. SIMON, P.J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment on a deficiency on a promissory note. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. 1976).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).

Plaintiffs motion for attorney’s fees on appeal in the amount of $3,025.00 and expenses in the amount of $121.50 is granted.
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ENACTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, H. Douglas Chaffin, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted
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/ H. Douglas
Chaffin





H.
Douglas Chaffin


Chief
Executive Officer


November
15, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
MBT Financial Corp. and will be retained by MBT Financial Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

January 23, 1941

No. 45248.

#### Petition 6023-R of Frank P. Dow Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was found that while perhaps the importer was not quite as diligent as he might have been in communicating certain information to his broker there was no intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## List of Figures 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
Exhibit 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with the Report of Competitive Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John B.
Nano, Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer, Interim Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my
knowledge:

     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/ John B. Nano
                                   ----------------
                                   John B. Nano
                                   Chairman, President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                   Interim Chief Financial Officer and Chief
                                   Accounting Officer

                                   June 15, 2009




                  *
                *****
              **-----**
            **-----       COMPETITIVE
          ****----        TECHNOLOGIES
            **=====       Unlocking the Potential of Innovation (R)
              **=====**
                *****
                  *  (R)





                            www.competitivetech.net
                            -----------------------

                                    Page 33
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of

ALISON KENNY MENTO

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT
FROM INACTIVE STATUS :

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 138 DB 201 7 (No. 82 RST 2017)

Attorney Registration No. 86410

( Chester County )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of November

, 201 7 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated October 26 , 2017, is approved and it is ORDERED

that Alison Kenny Mento

, who has been on Inactive Status

, has never been suspended

or disbarred, and has demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency

and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be

and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e Bar of this

Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and

processing of this matter shall be paid by the Petitioner.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7905

RONALD TATE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RICHARD SMITH; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney

General for the State of South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(ca-03-952-6-25AK)

Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 23, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Tate, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date

appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could

have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the

court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266

(1988).

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Tate seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

granting summary judgment against his petition for writ of habeas

corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was

not timely filed. 

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the

district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period

under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory

and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr., 434 U.S.

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220,

229 (1960)). 

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on

October 22, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on November 27,

2003.* Because Tate failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to

obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
- 3 -

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 44325.

Suit 4311.

#### Semon *Bache & Co.*v. *United States.*

Reap. Dec. 4713 affirmed. C. A. D. 140.
No. 96-7814.

#### Sindram *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:15 AM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants: 

Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Stationary 

Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units 

Hi, 

Attached is the handout from this meeting. 

Regards, 

Cortney 

<< 2060AR33_2014_05_01_GHGExisitng_SierraClub_Handout.pdf >> 

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Echols, Mabel E. 

Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants: Emission 

Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units 

When: Thursday, May 01, 2014 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 

Where: Wilson Room, White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW 

This meeting was requested by John Coequyt, Sierra Club.
March 13, 1942

No. 47009.

#### Protests 883195-G, etc., of Habicht Braun & Co.

Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing granted.
#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7643.

Invoice dated Toronto, Canada, January 30, 1948.

Certified February 2, 1948.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 27, 1948.

Entry No. 758567.

(Decided January 5, 1949)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General *(Richard F. Weeks,*special attorney), for the defendant.

*360Cole, Judge:

This case concerns the proper dutiable value of woven wool fabrics exported from Toronto, Canada, and entered at the port of New York.

The case is before me on a written stipulation wherein the parties agree that the issues presented here are the same in all material respects as those which were before the court in *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 7624, the record in which was incorporated by consent.

The cited case found that an 8 per centum Canadian sales tax was not part of statutory foreign value, section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)).

Undisputed' facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the present merchandise is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such dutiable value for the item in question is the appraised value, less the addition of the 8 per centum Canadian sales tax made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

                             CERTIFICATE 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 Advanced Technologies Group, Ltd.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies 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.

Date: June 13, 2005                     By: /s/ Abel Raskas
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Abel Raskas
                                            President


Date: June 13, 2005                      By: /s/ Alex Stelmak
                                            ---------------------------------
                                            Alex Stelmak
                                            Chief Financial Officer