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

--.’

liable for -3. other lee8 eresgt said ep~lluatioa fee an4 thtf ’umuel liaenas $80 mguirod uf r&a by thir set.*” ke wte that under the gmvieicna af.Article 667-01, j.~.o.C., the county alark ts Cesifjllated ae the oollooting agent $orthe oountp cut6that 130 fee la prercribetl tb tke olerk tar hts r~~lc88 in oolleetin~ ‘end Cepoeltizg the five ($5.00) dollare ~iacn8etee. Yen are thereioN, ~Btioed thet such Pee is not ths ~&$otr~Z’Of fOS.thrt i# to be d~CQesite6in the 0ffiQeX'U Sdl&~

. The language t&the ebovo artfale pwlitas bnly 2'0~the 4egosft 05 ~46fdfees ln the 

### CountyTreseury , 8na the statute neither lwl~wites the pextfuular eon&y tnnd~ into ahioh the fee shall bQ -:lrpositod agr spcoflisa the purpose gor whbh the countp my erpend theaacwwleto4 Yunllwhen O.QlleQt@d and deposited. It secmfi, howetef, that the &egZalotnPe intended.theare fess j by Uagoaft iate the mnty Txw?+ux~, to be erailabl~~ror oxp~e&tXtarc **by** the eoudy Yor' !ts general benefit. Thus, in the abse5o4 CY! aay'~epwiila ststut4ry4lreation es to the gatilonlar paxpbse for uhtoh sue& fees are **te be**  **ex~en&d ,Ud**  the **~ltrtioo~aE f~u?id** **FQ** V&iGh depOc%it&, it **is** ok opi13k1nthat 8aiw shbulu be deposited in the ~tmeral zunb or the

### oounty~.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 11-5123 September Term 2011

1:08-cv-01173-RJL

Filed On: August 10, 2012

Obaydullah, Detainee, Guantanamo Bay and

Sami Al Hajj, as next friend of Obaydullah,

Appellants

v.

Barack Obama, President of the United States

and Leon E. Panetta, Secretary of Defense of

the United States of America,

Appellees

BEFORE: Sentelle, Chief Judge, and Henderson and Garland, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the court’s order to show cause filed August 3, 2012,

directing appellees to show cause why the court’s opinions, filed August 3, 2012, should

not be released publicly with redactions of classified material only; and the response

thereto, it is

ORDERED that the order to show cause be discharged. The Clerk is directed to

issue forthwith the public version of the court’s opinion filed August 3, 2012, with only

the classified material redacted. 

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail 

Deputy Clerk
### WR-83,663-01 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 10/21/2015 2:33:10 PM Accepted 10/21/2015 3:55:01 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ARLISTER SHERRON RUSH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2991

[December 5, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Sherri L. Collins, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 502013CF005691AXXXWB.

Arlister S. Rush, Okeechobee, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
April 10, 1942

No. 47078.

#### Protests 969974-G, etc., of Quon Quon Co.

Government’s motion for rehearing granted.
SECOND
      AMENDMENT

    TO
      THE

    WORLD
      ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

    EXECUTIVE
      DEFERRAL PLAN

    


    This
      Second Amendment to the World Acceptance Corporation Executive Deferral Plan
      is
      made and entered into effective as of November 20, 2007.

    


    WHEREAS,
      World
      Acceptance Corporation ("Company") adopted the World Acceptance Corporation
      Executive Deferral Plan, effective December 19, 2000, attached hereto as Exhibit
      A and incorporated herein by reference (“2000 Plan”); and

    


    WHEREAS,
      effective
      December 31, 2004, the 2000 Plan was first amended to ensure its compliance
      with
      Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code ("Code") as it then read;
      and

    


    WHEREAS,
      it is
      now necessary and desirable to further amend the 2000 Plan to ensure that it
      is
      in compliance with the provisions of Code Section 409A that must be adopted
      on
      or before December 31, 2007.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      the
      2000 Plan is further amended such that new Article XIV at the end of the 2000
      Plan shall read.

    


    ARTICLE
      XIV

    PLAN
      FROZEN EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 2004

    


    Notwithstanding
      anything to the contrary herein, this Plan is frozen effective December 31,
      2004, so that benefits administered and payable under this Plan are limited
      only
      to those benefits, including earnings thereon accrued after December 31, 2004,
      that are fully vested and are not subject to Section 409A of the Internal
      Revenue Code because such benefits are "grandfathered" within the meaning of
      Treasury Regulations Sections 1.409A-6(a)(3)(ii) and (iv). Furthermore, it
      is
      intended that nothing in this amendment shall be considered a "material
      modification" of the Plan within the meaning of Treasury Regulation Section
      1.409A-6(a)(4), and that no amendment to this Plan may hereafter be adopted
      that
      would constitute such a material modification. Following the freeze, the
      grandfathered benefits of a Participant shall thereafter be administered and
      be
      payable to the Participant in accordance with the terms and provisions of this
      Plan. The benefits, if any, that are not "grandfathered" will be administered
      and payable under the terms of the New Plan, which will become effective January
      1, 2005 and will comply with the restrictions and requirements of Section 409A
      of the Internal Revenue Code.


    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      Company has executed this Second Amendment to the 2000 Plan this _____ day
      of
      _____________, 2007.

    


    
      	
              WORLD
                ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

            
	 
	
              By:

            	 
	 
	
              A.
                Alexander McLean, III, CEO
No. 47731.

#### Protest 78791-K of Iwata Trading Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Walker,, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel, entered into at the trial, the flowers covered by entry 12198 were held dutiable as manufactures in chief value of paper at 35 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1413, as claimed.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**STATEMENT
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**


**OF
      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





I,
      Winston Johnson, Chief Executive Officer (principal Executive Officer and
      principal Financial Officer) of Winsonic Digital Media Group, Ltd. (the
      "Company"), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(a)
      The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March
      31,
      2006, to which this certification accompanies (the "Annual Report"), fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934; and





(b)
      The
      information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




September
                25, 2006
            
            /S/
                Winston JohnsonWinston
                Johnson, Chief Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer)
**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**

|                             |                                                                           |                              |
|----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                             |                                                                           |
|                        |                                                                      |                         |
| *November              16, 2005* | By:                                                                  | */s/              James Wensveen* |
|                             | *James Wensveen*                                                               |
|                             | *Chief                Executive Officer**Chairman                of the Board* |

|         |                                                                                     |                        |
|--------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|         |                                                                                     |
|    |                                                                                |                   |
|         | By:                                                                            | */s/              Xin Feng* |
|         | *Xin Feng*                                                                               |
|         | *Chief                Accounting Officer**(principal**financial                officer)* |

----
# C_2014151EN.01001901.xml

| 19.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 March 2014 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA MOBILE)

(Case T-554/12) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AAVA MOBILE - Earlier Community word mark JAVA - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No likelihood of association - Link between the signs - Reputation - No similarity of the signs - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

2014/C 151/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Graf and T. Heydn, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by F. Mattina, and subsequently by P. Bullock, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 1205/2011-2) of 9 October 2012, concerning opposition proceedings between Oracle Amercia, Inc. and Aava Mobile Oy.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Oracle America, Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Oracle America, Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.

1

---
Before the First Division,

June 7, 1950

No. 54388.

#### Accurate Millinery Co. *v.*United States,

petition 6755-R (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The particular item in question was entered at 2.15 Swiss francs per piece, which was the invoice price, and it was appraised at 2.25 Swiss francs per piece. The other items on the invoice were appraised on the basis of the invoice values. Petitioner’s import manager testified that prior to entry she instructed the customs broker to submit the invoice to the examiner for information as to the value of the merchandise, and that she did not have any information of a price higher than the invoice or purchase price. On the record presented it was held that there was no intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
Case No. 9,335.

#### MAY et al. v. SHEEHY.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 135.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1831.

Landlord and Tenant — Assignee op Lessee— Action against — Covenants op Lease —Whole Estate.

1. In an action of covenant by the assignee of the lessor against the assignee of the lessee, the plaintiff may give parol evidence of an assignment by the lessee to the defendant. •

2. An assignee of the lessee is not liable to the lessor upon the covenants in the lease, unless lie is assignee of the whose estate of the original lessee.

This was an action of covenant, by [John E. May and others] the assignees of the lessor against [Edward Sheehy] the assignee of the lessee.

The defendant pleaded that he was not as-signee of the lessee.

The plaintiffs offered parol evidence of possession by the defendant, and his payment of rent to the plaintiffs, as evidence of an assignment. 2 Phil. Ev. 88, 89; Derisley v. Custance, 4 Term R. 75.

Mr. Hewitt, for defendant,

contends that the assignment can only be proved by deed, and the deed must be produced.

Mr. Taylor, contra.

The assignment from the lessee to the defendant is a matter not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. They are no party to it. As to them, it is res inter alios acta. They have no power, at common law, to call upon the defendant to produce the deed of assignment, if there was one.

THE COURT

(nem ccn.) permitted the parol evidence to be given; but instructed the jury that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover in' this action unless they should be satisfied that the defendant was assignee of the whole estate of the original lessee.

Verdict for defendant.
#### The A. W. Fenton Co. *v.*United States

No. 7862.

Entry No. 717359.

(Decided August 14, 1950)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Laweence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the merchandise the subject of this appeal are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Gothic Watch Co.,*23 Cust. Ct. 235, Reap. Dec. 7712, affirming the judgment in *Gothic Watch Co.*v. *United States,*19 Cust. Ct. 309, Reap. Dec. 7438, and that the record in Reap. Dec. 7712, *supra,*may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts, I find that the attempted appraisement embodied in the second return of value by the appraiser of the merchandise covered by this appeal was illegal, null, and void, and that the appraiser’s original return of value, as reported by him to the collector of customs, constituted his appraisal of the merchandise pursuant to section 500 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. §1500), and was final and conclusive in the absence of any appeal pursuant to section 501 of said act (19 U. S. C. §1501).

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (No.
333-113852 on Form S-8, No. 333-137501 on Form S-8, No. 333-124278 on Form S-3,
No. 333-140354 on Form S-3, No. 333-148649 on Form S-3, No. 333-148653 on Form
S-3 and No. 333-151775 on Form S-3) of CapLease, Inc. of our report dated March
5, 2009 relating to our audit of the consolidated financial statements,
financial schedules and internal control over financial reporting, which appear
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of CapLease, Inc. for the year ended December
31, 2008.





/s/
McGladrey & Pullen LLP




New York,
New York


March 5,
2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6495

JULIAN E. ROCHESTER, a/k/a Julian Edward Rochester, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MCKITHER BODISON, Warden of Lieber Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-6785

JULIAN EDWARD ROCHESTER, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:09-cv-00539-HMH-RSC; 2:09-cv-00940-HMH-RSC)

Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated matters, Julian Edward Rochester seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See MillerEl v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the records and conclude that Rochester has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. We deny the motions to transfer and to expedite consideration of the appeals.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Broadwind Energy, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Stephanie Kushner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Stephanie Kushner                                   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Stephanie Kushner                                       |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   (principal financial officer) |   |
|                                                    |   |
| Date: November 2, 2009                             |   |

 

----
exv10w1



 










Exhibit
10.1




THIRD AMENDMENT DATED JULY 31, 2007

TO

OPTIONAL ADVANCE DEMAND GRID NOTE




     This Third Amendment dated as of July 31, 2007 amends the Optional Advance Demand Grid Note
dated August 3, 2004, made by MKS Instruments, Inc. and MKS Japan, Inc. in favor of HSBC Bank USA,
National Association, as amended by the First Amendment, dated July 29, 2005 and the Second
Amendment, dated July 31, 2006 (the “Note”). Terms defined in the Note shall have the same
meanings in this Amendment.




	 	1.	 	The date of “July 31, 2007”, wherever it appears in the Note, is hereby deleted
and replaced with: “July 31, 2008”. After July 31, 2008, the termination date of “July
31, 2008” (and any subsequent termination date), wherever it appears in the note, shall
be deleted and replaced by such later date as may be agreed to in writing by the Bank
and the Borrower as the new termination date of the Note.
	 
	 	2.	 	The definition of Adjusted LIBOR Rate is changed to: the LIBOR Rate plus .75%
	 
	 	3.	 	Eliminate requirement “(iii) management prepared financial forecasts for each
fiscal year” as noted on page 4 of the Optional Advance Demand Grid Note.
	 
	 	4.	 	Except as amended hereby, the Note remains unchanged and in full force and
effect.





	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	MKS INSTRUMENTS, INC.	 	 	 	HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Joseph M. Tocci
	 	 
	 	By:
	 	/s/ Elise M. Russo
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Joseph M. Tocci
	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Elise M. Russo	 	 
	Title:

	 	Treasurer
	 	 	 	Title
	 	FVP	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	MKS JAPAN, INC.	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Ronald Weigner	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Name:

	 	Ronald Weigner	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Title:

	 	Director
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of CEO and CFO

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 on Form 10-KSB of Angeles Partners XII (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 Partnership.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 31, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 31, 2008   



This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3


                             AMERICAN BANCORP, INC.

                          DISCLOSURE ON CONTROLS BY THE
                     COMPANY'S PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICIER
                     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
                     ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


Disclosure controls and procedures appear to be in place and functioning
effectively during the period covered by this annual report. There appeared to
be no significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
significantly affect these controls in the period covered by this annual report
and since the Evaluation Date.



/s/ RONALD J. LASHUTE
---------------------------------
Ronald J. Lashute
Chief Executive Officer


March 17, 2003
--------------------------
Date