alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00887

- CV

John SALAS

, Appellant

v.

THE CARLSON LAW FIRM

,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 2 0847 Honorable Karen H. Pozza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due to be filed in this appeal on December 21, 2018. On December 27, 2018, this court notified the two court reporters identified as being responsible for filing the reporter’s record, Ms. Mary Martinez and Ms. Cynthia Hyatt, that the record was
lat e. On January 4, 2019, appellant filed his docketing statement identifying Ms. Cynthia Hyatt and Ms. Tracy Plummer as the court reporters responsible for preparing the repo rter’s record in this appeal

. Accordingly, the clerk of the court is instructed to update the court’s case management system to remove Ms. Martinez as a court reporter for this appeal

. In our December 27, 2018 notice, Ms. Hyatt was instructed to file her portion of the record by January 28, 2019.

On January 4, 2019, Ms. Plummer filed a notification of late record

, stating she received payment of the fees for the preparation of her portion of the reporter’s record on January 4, 2019, and requesting an ex tension of time to file the record to February 4, 2019. The request is
GRANTED. Ms. Plummer is ORDERED to file her portion of the reporter’s record no later than February 4, 2019.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 9th day of January, 201 9

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
FELIX STORCH, INC. 

### 710 GARRISON AVE.**~RONX,** lllY 10474

·ro whom it may concern: Phone: 718-893-3900 Fax: 718-842-3093 e-mail: paul@surnrnitappliance.corn

At the Department's direction, Felix Storch, Inc. is submitting this Petition for Waiverof the Department ofEnergy's testing procedures at l0 C.F.R. 

### §431. Attached please find a clean Petition for Waiver, a redacted Petition for Waiver, and ourrequest for Confidential Business Information treatment. Should you have any questions about the information contained in these documents, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted,
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR . 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 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 12, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50713 Summary Calendar

ELEAZAR GONZALEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus ERNESTO GONZALEZ, SUK CHA GONZALEZ, doing business as Hong Kong Buffet,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (USDC No. 1:05-cv-223)

-------------------- Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant won below on his FLSA claim and appeals only the district court’s calculation of his damage award. The over-time provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act require an employer to pay covered workers “at a rate of not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which he is employed.” 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1). Appellant argues that his “regular rate” should have been calculated by dividing his weekly salary by the number of hours he worked per week

— a rate which exceeded minimum wage. HeNo. 04-30852 -2- explains that his overtime wages should have been calculated based on this rate and the number of overtime hours work. The district court, however, assumed that the plaintiff was hired for the minimum wage, and that any extra money provided by his fixed salary was intended to partially compensate for overtime. The district court calculated the overtime rate based on the minimum wage, and deducted from plaintiff’s overtime wages the partial compensation. As a result of the district court’s approach, plaintiff argues that he is owed an additional $6,804.85 in wages and $6,804.85 in liquidated damages. There was a trial below and testimony about the parties’ intent. Yet the plaintiff argues that “it is indisputable that the district court was itself deeming the Plaintiff’s hourly wage to be the minimum wage of $5.15 as a matter of law , rather than finding that this wage somehow represented the intent of the parties.” (emphasis added). We disagree. The district court found that “the twice monthly payments were intended to cover all hours worked, including regular hours and overtime.” (emphasis added). It further found that “the raises were intended to compensate plaintiffs for overtime hours worked.” (emphasis added). Plaintiff’s efforts to transform this into a legal question are inconsistent with the record. We review

a district court’s factual findings for clear error, which plaintiff does not even attempt to show. The judgment of the district court isNo. 04-30852 -3- AFFIRMED.
-----"Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Eric Holder" <EHolder@indepmo.org> Date: 06/28/2010 10:47AM cc: "Leon Daggett" <LDagge tt@indepmo.org>, "Paul Mahlbe rg" <PMAHLBERG@indepmo.org> Subject: Plant ID's 06599 and 00664 Sectio n 308 ICR Response Extension Request

** High Priority   Reply Requested When Convenient ** 

Ms. Alicea,

Pursuant to your June 18, 2010 ICR Letter for our Missouri City (ID 06599) and Blue Valley (ID 00664) Power Plants, Independence Power & Light formally requests a 45 day extension to the response period (i.e., response would be due Tuesday November 2, 2010). The extension is necessary for the following reasons:

1) We are a small, municipally-owned utility with limited resources; 2) The amount of information requested is extensive requiring input from various departments; and, 3) The standard response period occurs during the summer, our busiest time of year, when our limited staff is already booked.

Thank you for your kind consideration of this extension request.

Regards, Eric Holder Environmental Compliance Engineer Independence Power & Light
21500 E. Truman Road Independence, MO 64051 (816) 325-7455 off (816) 325-7474 fax (816) 365-2378 cell 

### Pa g e 1 of 1

3/17/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C28C74BD

...
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1798

CURLEE SHERMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District

Judge; Joseph R. McCrorey, Magistrate Judge. (CA-04-1797-5)

Submitted: October 29, 2004 Decided: November 15, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Curlee Sherman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

Curlee Sherman appeals the district court’s order

affirming the magistrate judge’s dismissal of his complaint

pursuant to a previously entered pre-filing review order. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

although we grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Sherman

v. Wal-Mart, No. CA-04-1797-5 (D.S.C. filed July 16, 2004; entered

July 19, 2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-299]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 
897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether 
instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which 
the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being 
manufactured in the United States.
    Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a) (3) and (4) of the 
regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import 
Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. 
Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 
4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, D.C.
    Docket Number: 96-072R. Applicant: Penn State University, 118 
Research Building West, University Park, PA 16802. Instrument: Nano 
Indentor System, Model UMIS 2001. Manufacturer: CISRO, Australia. 
Intended Use: Original notice of this resubmitted application was 
published in the Federal Register of August 12, 1996.
    Docket Number: 96-076R. Applicant: University of Illinois at 
Urbana-Champaign, Purchasing Division, 506 South Wright Street, 207 
Henry Administration Building, Urbana, IL 61801. Instrument: Eye 
Tracking System, Model EYELINK. Manufacturer: SR Research Ltd., Canada. 
Intended Use: Original notice of this resubmitted application was 
published in the Federal Register of August 12, 1996.
Frank W. Creel,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 97-299 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
# L_2006089EN.01005601.xml

| 28.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 89/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 89/56

---

DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 13 March 2006

amending Decision ECB/2002/11 on the annual accounts of the European Central Bank

(ECB/2006/3)

(2006/248/EC)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular to Article 26.2 thereof,

Whereas:

For reasons of increased transparency, it is necessary to clarify the presentation of the European Central Bank (ECB) pension scheme in the ECB’s accounts. Annex II to Decision ECB/2002/11 of 5 December 2002 on the annual accounts of the European Central Bank (1) should be amended to reflect the inclusion of this item on the liability side of the ECB’s balance sheet under item 12 ‘Other Liabilities’,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Amendments

Annex II of Decision ECB/2002/11 is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its adoption.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 13 March 2006.

The President of the ECB

Jean-Claude TRICHET

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 3.3.2003, p. 38. Decision as amended by Decision ECB/2005/12 (OJ L 311, 26.11.2005, p. 43).

1

---

ANNEX

Amendments to Annex II to Decision ECB/2002/11: Composition and valuation rules for the balance sheet

Annex II to Decision ECB/2002/11 is amended as follows:

| (1) | In balance sheet item ‘Assets, Item 11.3 Other financial assets,’ under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is deleted:

  ‘Investment portfolios related to pension funds and severance schemes’. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

In balance sheet item ‘Assets, Item 11.3 Other financial assets,’ under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is deleted:

‘Investment portfolios related to pension funds and severance schemes’.

| (2) | In the first line of balance sheet item ‘Liabilities, Item 12.3 Sundry’, under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is inserted:

  ‘Net pension liability’. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the first line of balance sheet item ‘Liabilities, Item 12.3 Sundry’, under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is inserted:

‘Net pension liability’.

| (3) | In balance sheet item ‘Liabilities, Item 13 Provisions’, under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is deleted:

  ‘For pensions’. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In balance sheet item ‘Liabilities, Item 13 Provisions’, under ‘Categorisation of contents of balance sheet items’, the following sentence is deleted:

‘For pensions’.

---
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1759 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Mr. MCHENRY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Blue Ridge National Heritage Area, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Blue Ridge National 

5 Heritage Area Reauthorization Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE BLUE RIDGE NATIONAL 

7 HERITAGE AREA. 

8 The Blue Ridge National Heritage Area Act of 2003 

9 (54 U.S.C. 320101 note; Public Law 108–108; 117 Stat. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1759 IH

1 1274; 131 Stat. 461; 132 Stat. 661; 133 Stat. 778) is 

2 amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (i)— 

4 (A) by striking paragraph (1) and insert5 ing the following: 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be 

7 appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 

8 each fiscal year.’’; and 

9 (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘sub10 section (a)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1)’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (j), by striking ‘‘2021’’ and 

12 inserting ‘‘2036’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
---

EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Cherry Cai, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form
10-K/A of Secure Luggage Solutions, Inc;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,
and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The registrants other certifying officer and I
are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to
the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness
of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrants other certifying officer(s) and
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies
and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not
material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant
role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|                   | By: | /s/ Cherry Cai                          
|------------------ | --- | ----------------------------------------
|Date: May 16, 2011 |     | Cherry Cai                              
|                   |     | Principal Financial and
      Accounting
|                   |     | Officer                                 

---
```

[Federal Register: October 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 194)]
[Notices]               
[Page 62173]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07oc10-93]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7196]

 
In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Jemaah Islamiya 
(JI and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to 
Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as Amended

    Based upon a review of the Administrative Record assembled in this 
matter pursuant to Section 219(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1189(a)(4)(C)) (``INA''), and in 
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the 
Treasury, I conclude that the circumstances that were the basis for the 
2004 re-designation of the aforementioned organization as a foreign 
terrorist organization have not changed in such a manner as to warrant 
revocation of the designation and that the national security of the 
United States does not warrant a revocation of the designation.
    Therefore, I hereby determine that the designation of the 
aforementioned organization as a foreign terrorist organization, 
pursuant to Section 219 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1189), shall be 
maintained.
    This determination shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 28, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-25333 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
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





In connection with the Annual Report of Respect Your Universe, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Wood, Chief Financial Officer (Principal 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 results of operations of the Company.








Date: April 15, 2011

/s/John WoodJohn Wood, Chief Financial Officer
|   | (1) | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   November      5, 2008 | By:    | /s/      Charles N. Eldred        |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                         |   | Charles      N. Eldred            |
|                                         |   | Executive      Vice President and |
|                                         |   | Chief      Financial Officer      |
|                                         |   | PNM      Resources, Inc.          |

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1012
CHRISTOPHER D. WAGSTAFF, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF DURHAM, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-01-615-1) Submitted: July 15, 2003 Decided: August 6, 2003 Before WILKINSON, WIDENER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Everett Robinson, ROBINSON LAW OFFICE, Rocky Mount, North Carolina, for Appellant. Joel M. Craig, KENNON, CRAVER, BELO, CRAIG & MCKEE, P.L.L.C., Durham, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Christopher D. Wagstaff appeals the district court’s order granting summary j udgment to Defendant in this Title VII action alleging race discrimination and retaliation. We have reviewed the materials before us and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. SeeWagstaff v. City of Durham , No. CA-01-6 15-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 25, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2





CREXUS INVESTMENT CORP.


1211 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS


SUITE 2902


NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10036







CERTIFICATION




PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE




SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 10 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K ofCreXus Investment Corp.(the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 to be filed with Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Daniel Wickey, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:




1.

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





2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates of, and for the periods covered by, the Report.




It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.




/s/  Daniel WickeyDaniel WickeyChief Financial OfficerFebruary 25, 2011
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00089-CR

WILLIAM EDWARD MUIRHEAD,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 78th District 

Court

of Wichita County (59,229-B)

September 30, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell