alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## THE STATE OF TEXAS
MANDATE

TO THE 354TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HUNT COUN TY, GREETINGS:
Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 4th
day of February, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Royce William Tawater, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 14

- 00095

- CR

Trial Court No. 29,311

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
We note that the appellant, Royce William Tawater, has adequately indicated his inability
to pay costs of appeal . Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this
behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with
the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 29th day of May , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40338]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19750]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-90-002 and RP97-99-003]


Algonquin LNG, Inc.; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 18, 1997, Algonquin LNG, Inc. (ALNG) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, Sub Original Sheet No. 83, to be effective July 1, 1997.
    ALNG asserts that he purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's letter order dated July 3, 1997 in Docket Nos. RP97-90-001 
and RP97-99-002. ALNG states that the July 3 letter order required ALNG 
to revise its tariff to reflect certain GISB nominations standards, for 
which the Commission denied ALNG's requests for waivers.
    ALNG states that copies of the filing were served on firm customers 
of ALNG, interested state commissions and parties to the proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19750 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19775]



[[Page 40319]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Chapter I

[CC Docket No. 97-146, FCC 97-219]


Complete Detariffing for Competitive Access Providers and 
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published in the Federal 
Register of July 17, 1997, a document concerning a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) for complete detariffing for all non-ILEC providers 
of interstate exchange access services. Inadvertently no due date for 
Reply Comments or OMB Comments was provided. This document provides 
those dates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Bailey, (202) 418-1520.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register issue of July 17, 1997, in FR Doc. 97-
18882, on page 38244, in the first column, correct the DATES caption to 
read:

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 18, 1997. Reply comments 
are due on or before September 17, 1997. Written comments submitted by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the proposed modifications 
to information collections are due on or before September 26, 1997.

    Dated: July 22, 1997.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19775 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
July 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136933 (7) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices GRADY ZODIAC BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136933 COA: 285762 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $38.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partia l fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $337.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file furth er appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of th is order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.

jm I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
July 24, 2008
Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19794]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1179-DR]


Texas; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Texas (FEMA-1179-DR), dated July 7, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident 
period for this disaster is closed effective July 15, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
Catherine H. Light,
Deputy Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-19794 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________ No. 07 - 19 - 00109 - CV

________________________ IN RE TY DAVIS REECE, RELATOR

Original Proceeding Arising From Proceedings Before the 100th District Court

Hall C ounty, Texas Trial Court No. 3597 ; Honorable Stuart M. Messer , Presiding

April 9 , 201 9 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. By this original proceeding, Relator, Ty Davis Reece, an inmate proceeding pro se , seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Hall County District Clerk to transmit a copy of his application for a writ of habeas corpus to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pu rsuant to article 11.07, section 3 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. We dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction.2

This c ourt has the authority to issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in our district and all writs necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(b) ( W est Supp. 2018 ). In order for a district clerk to fall within our jurisdictional reach, it must be established that the issuance of the writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 - 93 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding ). Relator does not have an a ppeal pending in this c ourt nor has he demonstrated that the exercise of our mandamus authority against the Hall County District Clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Consequently, we have no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against the Hal l County District Clerk . Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Per Curiam
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of CCA Industries, Inc. (the "Registrant") onForm 10-K for the annual period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, DavidEdell, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached, fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Action of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

        

 

 

 

Date:February 28, 2006

                                             /s/ 

                                                   David Edell

                                                   Chief Executive Officer                         

----

    

 

 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

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of CCA Industries, Inc. (the "Registrant") onForm 10-K for the annual period ended November 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, JohnBingman, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report, to which this certification is attached, fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Action of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

        

 

 

 

Date:February 28, 2006

                                   /s/  

                                        John Bingman                               

                                        Chief Financial Officer
# C_2014194EN.01000901.xml

| 24.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 30 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — Belgium) — Ordre des architectes v État belge

(Case C-365/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2005/36/EC - Articles 21 and 49 - Recognition of professional qualifications - Access to the profession of architect - Exemption from professional traineeship))

2014/C 194/10

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ordre des architectes

Applicant:

Defendant: État belge

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d’État (Belgium) — Interpretation of Articles 21, 46 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22) — Access to and pursuit of the profession of architect — Enrolment in the Ordre des architectes — National legislation restricting enrolment to holders of evidence of formal qualifications issued in Belgium on completion of a professional traineeship of a 2 year duration — Prohibition on requiring holders of an architect’s diploma obtained in another Member State to have completed such a traineeship or to have equivalent experience

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 21 and 49 of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 279/2009 of 6 April 2009, must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State from requiring the holder of a professional qualification obtained in the home Member State and listed in point 5.7.1 of Annex V, or in Annex VI, to that directive to undertake a traineeship, or to prove that he possesses equivalent professional experience, in order to be authorised to practise the profession of architect.

---

(1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of nFinanSe Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jerry R. Welch, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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







/s/ Jerry R. WelchDate:   August 11, 2011
Jerry R. Welch

Chief Executive Officer and Director
No. 96-7855.

#### Mollenhour *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
# C_2015279EN.01002301.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/23

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 15 June 2015 — Patrice d’Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL v Walloon Region

(Case C-290/15)

(2015/C 279/28)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Patrice d’Oultremont, Henri Tumelaire, François Boitte, Éoliennes à tout prix? ASBL

Defendant: Walloon Region

Question referred

Are Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC (1) on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment to be interpreted to the effect that a regulatory order containing various provisions on the installation of wind turbines, including measures on safety, inspection, site restoration and financial collateral and permitted noise levels set having regard to town and country planning zones, such provisions setting a framework for the grant of administrative consent allowing a developer to install and operate installations which are automatically subject under national law to an assessment of their effects on the environment, must be considered to be a ‘plan or programme’ within the meaning of those articles?

---

(1)  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (OJ 2001 L 197, p. 30).

---
No. 40527.

#### Protests 923873-G, etc., of Spiegel Bros. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

On the records presented the protests were overruled.
**Exhibit 10.25**

**AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This Amendment No. 2 (the “Amendment”), dated April 13, 2006, to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of the21st day of July, 2004 (the “Employment Agreement”), between Robert P. Belcher (the “Executive”)and Memry Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”). 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and the Executive have agreed thatthe Executive will act as Chief Executive Officer for so long as requested by the Company;****

**WHEREAS**, the Company and theExecutive desire to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect Executive’s increased responsibilities as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. 

**NOW, THEREFORE**, the Company and the Executive hereby agree as follows: 

1.Section 3(b) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

“The Executive shall also beentitled to receive additional compensation in the form of an annual target bonus in an amount equal to 60% of the Executive’s base annual salary, determined by and in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors of the Company. Such amount isbased upon the Company meeting Company performance goals and objectives. The Executive shall also be eligible to receive, on an annual basis, 175,000 performance based stock option grants pursuant to any bonus and/or incentive compensation programsthat may be established by the Company, including without limitation the Company’s current incentive plans; provided, however, that nothing set forth in this sentence will in any way limit the Board of Directors discretion to approve or rejectany bonus that the Executive would otherwise be due under any such plans.” 

2. Except as amended hereby, theEmployment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**, the parties have executed this Amendment as of thedate set forth above.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6069

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

and

GENERAL KEARNEY, JR.,

Claimant,

v.

ADRIAN LAMONT KEARNEY, a/k/a Adrian Carlton White, a/k/a 

A.D.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. W. Earl Britt, 

Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00041-BR-1; 4:12-cv-00282-BR)

Submitted: April 9, 2013 Decided: April 18, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Adrian Lamont Kearney, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika K. Shah, 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Adrian Lamont Kearney seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Kearney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 10.7  




ASSIGNMENT OF LEASE  



THIS ASSIGNMENT made the
31st day of January 2002. 



BETWEEN: 



WESTLAND CAPITAL INC. 



(the
“Assignor”) 



and 



INDUSTRIAL MINERALS
INCORPORATED 



(the
“Assignee”) 



WHEREAS: 



     	1.	
          By a lease dated September 10th, 1993 and registered on October 1,
          1993 as Instrument Number 364704 in the Land Registry office of the County of
          Renfrew (the “Lease”). Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of The Province
          Of Ontario (the “Lessor”), leased under the Mining Act to Consolidated
          North Coast Industries Ltd. the premises (the “Premises”) known as
          Schedules “A-1” and “A-2” attached hereto, for a term of 21
          years and subject to the terms and conditions set out therein. 


          



     	2.	
          By Assignment of Lease dated December 21st, 2001 and registered in
          the Land Registry of the County of Renfrew on January 22, 2002 as Instrument No.
          R0429883, Great Basin Gold Ltd., as successor in interest to Consolidated North
          Coast Industries Ltd., assigned its interest in said lease to Paul C. McLean,
          Estate of Pierre G. Lacombe and Frank G. Tagliamonte, as owners of the premises
          as set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto, free of encumbrance; 


          



     	3.	
          By Assignment of Lease dated January 31, 2002 and registered in the Land
          Registry Office of the County of Renfrew on March 4, 2002 as Instrument No.
          R429007, Paul C. McLean, Estate of Pierre G, Lacombe and Frank G. Tagliamonte,
          assigned their interest in said Lease to Westland Capital Inc., as owner of the
          premises as set out in Schedule “A” attached hereto, free of
          encumbrance. 


          



     	4.	
          The Assignee has requested the Assignor to transfer the residue of the term of
          years and assign to it the lease: 


          



NOW THEREFORE: 



In consideration of $1.00, paid by
the Assignee to the Assignor (the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged) the Assignor as
beneficial owner hereby assigns to the Assignee the Assignor’s interest in the
Premises together with the unexpired residue of the term of the Lease and all benefits to
be derived form it subject to the payment of the rents and the observance and performance
of the covenants, provisos, and conditions on the part of the lessee contained in the
Lease. 











WITNESS our hands and seals. 



SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVED in
the presence of: 




Westland Capital Inc. 




/s/Richard West  



Per:    Richard West

          
Signing Authority

I have the authority to bind the corporation  




Industrial Minerals Incorporated 



/s/ Michael Stanek  



Per: Michael Stanek 
Title:
Secretary/Treasurer 
I have the authority to bind the Corporation