alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-19-00456-CV

IMPACTO MEDIA, INC.,

Appellant

v.

UNITED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-CVH-001030-D3

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 7, 2019

DISMISSED

Appellant has filed an agreed motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Appellant’s motion is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1); 43.2(f). Per the parties’ agreement, each party shall bear their respective 

costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.2

US ONCOLOGY, INC.

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 US Oncology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce D. Broussard, President 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/ Bruce D. Broussard                                    
|Bruce D. Broussard,                                       
|President and Chief Financial Officer of US
Oncology, Inc.

March 15, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1736 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1736

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To provide for the participation of employees in the judicial branch in 
   the Federal leave transfer program for disasters and emergencies.

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

SECTION 1. LEAVE TRANSFER PROGRAM IN DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES.

    Section 6391 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and
            (2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following:
    ``(f) After consultation with the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts, the Office of Personnel Management shall provide 
for the participation of employees in the judicial branch in any 
emergency leave transfer program under this section.''.

            Passed the Senate October 19, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1736

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To provide for the participation of employees in the judicial branch in 
   the Federal leave transfer program for disasters and emergencies.
```
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 

We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. 

Susan Hedman 

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. 

Governor 

Thon1as W. Easterly 

Commissioner 

· Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 5 

77 West Jackson Boulevard 

Chicago, Illinois 60604 

Dear Ms. Hedman: 

December 12, 2012 

100 North Senate Avenue 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 

(317) 232-8603 

Toll Free (800) 451-6027 

www.idem.IN.gov 

Re: Revised Request for the July 12, 2012, PM2.s 

New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submittal 

On July 12, 2012, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 

submitted for approval regulations to address precursors to ozone and particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal two and five-tenths (2.5) micrometers 

(PM2.5) and cond~nsibles for PM2.s (#11-251). The original request was to review and approve 

specific citations in Indiana's new rule while taking no action on the remainder of the rulemaking. 

At this time, IDEM requests that U.S. EPA include the following additional citations from 

the PM2.5 NSR rulemaking for approval into the state implementation plan (SIP): 

326 lAC 2-1.1-3( d)(2)(A) 

326 lAC 2-1.1-3(e)(1)(A) 

326 lAC 2-1.1-3(h)(2)(B)(xi) 

326 lAC 2-2-1(f)(l) 

326 lAC 2-2-1(ee)(3) 

326 lAC 2-2-1(gg)(1)(C) 

326 lAC 2-2-4(b )(2)(A)(vi) 

326 lAC 2-2-6(b) 

326 lAC 2-2-14(e) 

326 lAC 5-1-5(b)(1)(E) 

IDEM requests that U.S. EPA only act on the citations listed in the original request of July 12, 

2012, and the citations above in this supplemental request. In addition, the July 12, 2012, request 

included an incorrect citation. The citation "326 lAC 2-2-4(b )(2)(vi)" should be "326 lAC 2-2-

4(b )(2)(A)(vi)." 

Recycled Paper @ An Equal Opportunity Employer Please Recycle 0 
Please -contact Scott Deloney, Air Programs Branch Chief, Office of Air Quality, at (317) 

233-5694, if you have questions conceming this submission. 

Sincerely, 

lt ;J~ 3~6~ 

KB/cep 

cc: John Mooney U.S. EPA, Region 5 

Pamela Blakley, U.S. EPA, Region 5 

Sam Portanova, U.S. EPA Region 5 

Doug Aburano U.S. EPA, Region 5 

Steve Rosenthal U.S. EPA, Region 5 

Andy Chang U.S. EPA, Region 5 

Scott Deloney, IDEM 

Christine Pedersen, IDEM 

SIP file 

Keith Baugues 

Assistant Commissioner, Office of Air Quality
#### GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 40753.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 25, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 162.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
575-/.T

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA# 07-14-00086-CR

Jeffery Tyrone Whitfield v. The

STYLE: State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED

OFFENSE: 49.04

COUNTY: Denton

TRIAL COURT: County Criminal Court No 1

DATE: 04/09/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: CR-2013-04378-A

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Jeffery Tyrone Whitfield v. The State

STYLE: of Texas

APP£LL/\hlT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE:.

JUDGE Tttk UAAs*-*^

CCA#: 575-/5

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
|   | 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: December      23, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Stephen DelVecchia  |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------|--------|
|                               |   | Stephen      DelVecchia      |
|                               |   | Chief      Financial Officer |
|                               |   |                         |
#### Harry Daniel CHISHOLM v. Elvia Annette CHISHOLM.

No. 49946.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 28, 1977.

Johnston & Adams, Jerry T. Johnston, Brandon, for appellant.

David W. Dreher, Jackson, for appellee.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND RENDERED.

INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and ROBERTSON, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
Essential Air Service Task Force

643 Remuda Creek Road

Fort Peck MT 59223

(406) 526-7069

July 26, 2013

Dennis DeVany

Chief, Essential Air Service Division, X-53

Office of Aviation Analysis

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,

Washington DC 20590

RE: Docket DOS-OST -1997 -2605

Dear Mr. DeVany,

On July 25, 2013, the Montana Essential Air Service Task Force met to consider the three proposals received in

response to the Department's June 12,2013 request for proposals.

The task force appreciates the interest of all three air carriers and in a unanimous decision, recommends

selection of Cape Air's Option A as submitted.

Thank you for considering our recommendation as you select an essential air service carrier to provide service

to our Montana communities.

John Rabenberg

Chairman

Copies; Debbie Alke, Aeronautics Division Administrator

Andrew W. Bonney, Cape Air

Daniel Helland, Boutique Air

Doug Voss, Great Lakes Aviation
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________ No. 08-2821

________________ Edward W. Sunder; Louis R. Jarodsky, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan, Defendant, U.S. Bank Pension Plan, Defendant-Appellant, Mercantile Bank Horizon 401(k) Investment & Savings Plan; Mercantile Bank Cash Balance Retirement Plan, Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. [UNPUBLISHED]

________________ Submitted: January 13, 2010 Filed: August 5, 2010

________________ Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

________________-2- PER CURIAM. Appellant U.S. Bank Pension Plan appeals from the district court's award of attorney fees and costs in favor of Edward W. Sunder and Louis R. Jarodsky stemming from the favorable district court judgment on their ERISA claims. We reversed the underlying judgment in favor of Sunder and Jarodsky, seeSunder v. U.S. Bancorp Pension Plan , 586 F.3d 593, 603 (8th Cir. 2009), and the court held this attorneys' fee appeal in abeyance pendi ng Sunder and Jarodsky's petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. The time for filing a petition for certiorari has lapsed, and the appellees have not filed a petition. On May 13, 2010, the court directed the parties to show cause why the district court's attorneys' fee awar d should not be reversed. Having received no response from Sunder or Jarodsky, we vacate the district c ourt's award of attorneys' fees and costs since the basis for the aw ard no longer exists. SeeDillard's Inc. v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston , 456 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (" Because Dillard's is no longer the prevailing party in the underlying ERISA suit, we vacate the district court's award of attorney's fees and costs.") (per curiam). The district court's judgment is reversed and its order vacated.

______________________________
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24606]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-060-01-1310-00]


Gillette South Coalbed Methane Project, Campbell County, Wyoming; 
Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability 
of the Gillette South Coalbed Methane Project abbreviated (FEIS). 
Together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) issued in 
March 1997, the FEIS analyzes the environmental consequences of coalbed 
methane development within the Gillette South assessment area. The 
development area is located in Campbell County and generally located 
within Townships 42 through 49 North; Ranges 70 through 73 West, 6th 
Principal Meridian. The area is accessed by U.S. Highway 59 south of 
Gillette, Wyoming. Access to the interior of the assessment area is 
provided by a road system developed to service prior and ongoing 
drilling and production activities.

DATES: Since the FEIS is abbreviated it must be reviewed with the DEIS. 
Comments on the FEIS will be accepted for 30 days following the date 
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes their Notice of 
Availability in the Federal Register. The EPA notice is expected on or 
about September 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the FEIS should be sent to Mr. Richard Zander, 
Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Resource Area, 1425 Fort Street, 
Buffalo, Wyoming 82834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEIS issued in March 1997, received 
twelve comments. These comments were addressed and considered in the 
analysis of the FEIS. The FEIS analyzes a proposed action, and the no 
action alternative. It also considers four other alternatives, Restrict 
Timing of Approval of Federal Wells, Reduce Number of Federal Wells 
Approved, Change the Method of Surface Water Disposal, and Inject 
Produced Water Underground. The proposal presented by the operators is 
to continue to drill additional wells on their leased acreage within 
this methane gas development area.
    Over the next 3 to 5 years, the operators propose to drill up to 
400 (210 private or State and 190 Federal) additional wells to obtain 
maximum recovery of methane gas from existing Federal (41 percent), 
State, and private oil and gas leases. The FEIS describes the physical, 
biological, cultural, historic, and socioeconomic resources in and 
surrounding the project area. The focus of the impact analysis was 
based upon resource issues, concerns identified during public scoping, 
and the public and internal review comments received on the DEIS.

    Dated: September 5, 1997.
Alan R. Pierson,
State Director.
[FR Doc. 97-24606 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
EXHIBIT 32.2  CERTIFICATION  Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)  Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 (the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Date: August 19, 2013/s/ Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung Wai Hung, Eddie, Chief Financial Officer
/s



# Fourth Cour **t of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 13, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00341

- CV

BEXAR COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Appellant

v.

Carmella GUERRERO

, Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 08758

Honorable A ntonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The reporter’s record was due on July 6, 2015 . The court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal has filed a notification of late reporter’s record stating that the record was not timely filed because appellant has failed to request and designate the record and has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the court reporter’s fee for preparing the record.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days from the date of this order that: (1) a written request has been made for preparation of the reporter’s record pursuant to T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1); and (2) either (i) the court reporter’s fees have been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the c ourt reporter’s fees, or (ii) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the court reporter’s fees.

If appellant fails to respond to this order within the time provided, the appellant’s brief

will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in the appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a

decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are abated pending a response to this order.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of July, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41220 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CALVIN FONVILLE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:01-CR-3-ALL

-------------------- June 7, 2002 Before JOLLY, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Calvin Fonville appeals from a conviction for being a prisoner in possession of marijuana in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1791(a)(2). Fonville argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We review Fonville’s sufficiency challenge in the light most favorable to the Government, determining whether any reasonable trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the crimeNo. 01-41220 -2- beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Ortega Reyna , 148 F.3d 540, 543 (5th Cir. 1998). Extensive testimony from one of the prison officers who recovered the marijuana from Fonville’s cell locker secured by a personal combination lock, established sufficient evidence to support the conviction under 18 U.S.C § 1791(a)(2). Fonville also argues that the trial court erred in striking two prospective jurors for cause. We defer to the trial court’s determination regarding juror credibility and bias, and absent an abuse of discretion, this court will not second guess the trial court’s determination. United States v. Duncan , 191 F.3d 569, 573 (5th Cir. 1999). The record from jury voir dire supports the trial court’s decision to exclude the two potential jurors. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
#### Raymond L. VERMETTE, Petitioner, v. SURF DRUGS, INC., a Florida corporation, Respondent.

No. 69-471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 5, 1970.

Simons & Schlesinger, Hollywood, for petitioner.

Green & Hastings, and Samuel Z. Goldman, Miami, for respondent.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARIC-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

Whereas, the judgment of this court was entered on September 30, 1969 (226 So.2d 871) granting in part and denying in part, certiorari review of the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

Whereas, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of Florida by its opinion and judgment filed May 6, 1970 (236 So.2d 108) and mandate dated May 22, 1970, quashed in part and affirmed in part this court’s judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings;

Now, therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on October 24, 1969 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment of this court filed in this cause on September 30, 1969, insofar as it is in conflict with or fails to conform to the views expressed in the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida filed May 6, 1970, aforesaid, is withdrawn and vacated, and the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court. The opinion and judgment of this court, except as withdrawn and vacated as aforesaid, is adhered to; and the petition for certiorari to review the trial court’s order on objections is granted in part and denied in part. Costs allowed shall be taxed in the Circuit Court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, Florida Appellate Rules, 32 F.S.A.).
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund XVIII,  Ltd. at December 31, 1998, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is  qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income Fund XVIII,  Ltd.  for the year ended  December  31,
1998.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1998
<CASH>                                         1,839,613
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  62,189
<ALLOWANCES>                                   62,189
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                         23,388,865
<DEPRECIATION>                                 512,853
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 31,112,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     30,268,497
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   31,112,617
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,097,757
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  597,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,302,322
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,302,322
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,302,322
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        
<FN>
Due to  the  nature  of  its  industry,  CNL  Income  Fund  XVIII,  Ltd.  has an
unclassified  balance  sheet;  therefore  no values are shown  above for current
assets and current liabilities.
</FN>

</TABLE>