alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The STATE of Florida ex rel. Lawrence Michael BROOKS and Edwina Kinsey, Relators, v. The Honorable Jack M. TURNER, as Judge of the Criminal Court of Record, in and for Dade County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 40877.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 19, 1971.

Lawrence S. Katz and Harvey S. Swic-kle, Miami Beach, for relators.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty., and Milton Robbins, Asst. State’s Atty., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to the views expressed in State ex rel. Soodhalter v. Baker, Fla., 248 So.2d 468, opinion filed May 19, 1971, this suggestion for a writ of prohibition be and is hereby transferred to the Third District Court of Appeal for inquiry into this matter *166and for the granting of such relief as that court shall deem appropriate.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
**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
      Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2008 (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. a  nd will be
      retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
      a




Date:
                August 19, 2008
            
            
            /s/
                Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung
                Wai Hung, Eddie , Chief Financial
                Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION  OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Kevin J. Mills, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Socket Communications,  Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents  in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of  Socket Communications, Inc. 

|   | By: /s/ Kevin        J. Mills        Name: Kevin J. Mills        Title: President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)Date: March 6, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

I, David W. Dunlap, certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Socket Communications,  Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934  and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents  in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of  Socket Communications, Inc.

|   | By:      /s/ David W. Dunlap      Name: David W. Dunlap      Title: Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial      Officer (Principal Financial Officer)      Date: March 6, 2008 |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Wilmer James HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-649.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 REMOTE DYNAMICS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES 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 Remote Dynamics, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K/A for
the period ended August 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, W. Michael Smith, Executive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, and Treasurer 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/ W. Michael SmithW. Michael SmithExecutive Vice President, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)June 24, 2005
##### 



Exhibit 21.1 SUBSIDIARIES OF DAVE & BUSTERS, INC. 1. Dave & Busters of Illinois, Inc., an Illinois corporation
2. Dave & Busters of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia corporation
3. Dave & Busters of Pennsylvania, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
4. DANB Texas, Inc., a Texas corporation
5. Dave & Busters of Maryland, Inc., a Maryland corporation
6. Dave & Busters of California, Inc., a California corporation
7. Dave & Busters of Colorado, Inc., a Colorado corporation
8. Dave & Busters of New York, Inc., a New York corporation
9. Dave & Busters of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation
10. Dave & Busters of Pittsburgh, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
11. Dave & Busters of Hawaii, Inc., a Hawaii corporation
12. D&B Leasing, Inc., a Texas corporation
13. Dave & Busters I, L.P., a Texas limited partnership
14. D&B Realty Holding, Inc., a Missouri corporation
15. Tango Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the corporate  general partner of CNL Income Fund XVIII, Ltd. (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date:    March 28, 2003                   /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                          ------------------------------
                                          Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                          Title:   Chief Executive Officer
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 08/ 5 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** South Dakota Public Utilities Commission Meeting on 111d held on 07/31 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  EPA Region 8 ’s Acting Assistant Regional Administrator, Callie Videtich, p articipated in a panel discussion on the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants at a South Dakota Public Utilities Commission meeting held on 07/31 /2014 in Sioux Falls, SD . The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  **Region 8** Callie Videtich **External Stakeholders** See attached Attachments 111d PowerPoint presentation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF AUTOWEB.COM, INC. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMETNS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          71,432                  37,768
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,166                  11,855
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                76,435                  65,552
<PP&E>                                           1,380                   2,623
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,815                  86,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,323                   7,182
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            18                      23
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,815                  86,002
<SALES>                                         12,765                  30,986
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,765                  30,986
<CGS>                                            1,300                   3,167
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,300                   3,167
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,394)                (13,229)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,394)                (13,229)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.31)                  (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)                  (0.49)


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25143]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-437-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company and Missouri Gas Energy, a Division 
of Southern Union Company; Data Request and Notice of Staff Technical 
Conference

September 17, 1997.
    On August 1, 1997, Williams Natural Gas Company (Williams) and 
Missouri Gas Energy, a Division of Southern Union Company (MGE) filed a 
request for a declaratory order requesting that the Commission resolve 
certain issues concerning the operation of the right of first refusal 
(ROFR) mechanism on William's system. A number of parties have filed 
interventions and protests or comments on the filing. Some of those 
filing comments and the Commission staff are not clear about some 
aspects of the request for a declaratory order. In order to clarify 
these issues, Williams and MGE are required to respond to the following 
questions by October 3, 1997. A technical conference to discuss these 
issues will be held on October 21, 1997.
    1. For each example posited in the August 1, 1997 Declaratory Order 
request, Williams and MGE must provide a complete description of the 
expiring contract and the bids received on the capacity, including, the 
capacity for each component of TSS service under the expiring contract, 
whether the bids submitted are for TSS service, the capacities of each 
TSS component contained in each bid for the expiring capacity, the 
duration of the bids, and the rate bid and maximum rate for each 
component.
    2. Parts A and C of the August 1, 1997 Declaratory Order request 
appear to pose the same question, and Williams and MGE must explain any 
intended difference in the questions posed.
    3. Williams and MGE must explain how the examples in their request 
for a Declaratory Order differ from the issue addressed by the 
Commission in William's restructuring proceeding, Williams Natural Gas 
Company, 66 FERC para. 61,315, at 61,946 (1994).
    The response to these questions should be filed in accordance with 
the provisions of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, in 
particular, 18 CFR 385.2001 and 385.2010 (Rules 2001 and 2010), which 
require that documents be filed with the Secretary of the Commission 
and served on all parties in the docket.
    The conference to address these issues will be held on October 21, 
1997, beginning at 10 a.m., in a room to be designated at the offices 
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, DC 20426.
    All interested persons are invited to attend.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25143 Filed 9-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 1 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 3 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 4 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 5 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 6 of 7
Case 4:05-cv-02156-JEJ Document 14 Filed 06/19/06 Page 7 of 7
Order entered September 4, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00372-CR

CARROLL GENE HENDERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 069214

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 3, 2019 motion to extend time to file his brief. 

We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before October 3, 2019. 

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### Fay KELLEY, as Executrix of the Estate of Julian S. Kelley, Deceased, Appellant, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Appellees.

No. 68-4.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Feb. 5, 1969.

Harold S. Wilson of Wilson & Walker, Clearwater, for appellant.

Charles W. Pittman, of Macfarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly, Tampa, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the Civil and Criminal Court of Record for Pinellas County, Florida. Plaintiff, appellant here, was the wife of the deceased, Julian S. Kelley, who had purchased a credit life insurance policy in July of 1965, which policy contained the following language:

> “I, the undersigned debtor, proposed for such insurance, in order to induce Prudential to effect such insurance, do hereby declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, I am now in good health.”

On January 27, 1966, appellant’s husband died of cancer while still owing General Motors Acceptance Corporation $3,311.71. Appellee, Prudential Insurance Company, refused to pay and suit was brought. After taking many depositions the court granted a summary judgment in favor of Prudential.

We have read the briefs and the depositions of the doctors and others taken in this cause, and have heard oral argument. We can find no reason to believe that the plaintiff’s husband did not know of his bad health at the time he signed the application for the insurance policy.

For these reasons the entry of the summary judgment in favor of Prudential Insurance Company was correct.

Affirmed.

LILES, C. J., and PIERCE and MANN, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 13.2
                                906 CERTIFICATION


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         The certificate set forth below is being submitted in connection with
the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003, (the
"Report") for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

          Zhang Liyan, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer of Jilin Chemical
Industrial Company Limited, certifies that, to the best of her knowledge:

         3.     the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
                or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

         4.     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
                material respect, the financial condition and results of
                operations of Jilin Chemical Industrial Company Limited.


Date:    June 16, 2004



                                        By:/S/ ZHANG LIYAN
                                               ------------
                                        Name:  Zhang Liyan
                                        Title: Deputy Chief Financial Officer










A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO JILIN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
LIMITED AND WILL BE RETAINED BY JILIN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
EXHIBIT 13.1
                                906 CERTIFICATION

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W
Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         The certificate set forth below is being submitted in connection with
the annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004, (the
"Report") for the purpose of complying with the Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

         Yu Li, the Chairman of Jilin Chemical Industrial Company Limited,
certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respect, the financial condition and results of operations of
          Jilin Chemical Industrial Company Limited.

Date:    May 19, 2005



                                                           By: /S/YU LI
                                                               ---------
                                                           Name:   Yu Li
                                                           Title:  Chairman






A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO JILIN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY
LIMITED AND WILL BE RETAINED BY JILIN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### Hubert OWENS, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-1043.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 8, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 28, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20748 Summary Calendar

PAULINE NGOLE, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:04-CV-2039

-------------------- Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Pauline Ngole, a native and citizen of Nigeria, appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Ngole argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) violated her due process rights by determining that she did not meet the requirements set forth Matter of Lozada , 19 I & N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988) and, thus, not addressing her late appeal from the immigration judge’s order. The district court denied and dismissed Ngole’s petition, holding that it lacked authority to review the BIA’s decision; that if it had even if had such authority, the scope of judicialNo. 04-20748 -2- review was limited to circumstances not applicable in Ngole’s case; and if the scope of such review were not limited, that Ngole was not entitled to habeas relief because “Ngole’s constitutional due process rights have not been infringed upon due to ineffective assistance of counsel.” Ngole argues and cites evidence to support her argument that she met the Lozada requirements and that the BIA erred in its determination that she did not. However, she has not briefed the question of the district court’s authority to review the claims raised in her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and has inadequately briefed any due-process argument. Indeed, the brief contains no real “argument” on this issue; rather, it is composed wholly of conclusional allegations. Nor does it cite any relevant case law. See F ED . R. A PP . P. 28 (a)(9); United States v. Tomblin , 46 F.3d 1369, 1376 n.13 (5th Cir. 1995) (brief must contain a legal argument that indicates the basis for each contention). Thus, any appealable issues have been abandoned and need not be addressed by this court. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.