alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 00-7211.

#### Alcala-Sanchez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### DEPENDENTS OF Billy Howard BARRETT, Deceased, v. LEAKE COUNTY COOPERATIVE (A. A. L.) and Michigan Mutual Liability Company.

No. 46264.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 7, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1971.

H. W. Davidson, A. R. Wright, Jr., Carthage, for appellant.

Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, K. Hayes Callicutt, Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Presiding Justice:

Billy Howard Barrett, an employee of Leake County Cooperative, died on February 7, 1967. His dependents made claim for compensation benefits. The attorney referee and the Workmen’s Compensation Commission denied compensation. On ap*388peal to the circuit court, the order of the commission was reversed, and death benefits were awarded the dependents of the deceased employee. The employer and its compensation carrier appealed to this Court. The case was affirmed as to liability and remanded to the commission for apportionment of benefits due to deceased’s pre-existing heart condition as provided by Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated, Section 6998-04 (Supp.1970). The facts are stated in the former opinion. Leake County Cooperative (A. A. L.) v. Dependents of Barrett, 226 So.2d 608 (Miss.1969).

On remand Dr. Loutrelle Stribling was of the opinion that decedent's fatal heart attack was caused fifty percent from his pre-existing heart disease and fifty percent from the duties of his employment. Dr. William H. Rosenblatt was of the opinion that the duties of decedent’s employment contributed less than one percent to his heart attack. Dr. Leo Elson was of the opinion that the duties of the employment contributed to decedent’s heart attack only Ji,3oo of one percent.

Thereupon the attorney referee found that the duties of the deceased’s employment contributed one percent or less to his death, and 99 percent or more was related to and caused by his pre-existing heart disease. Compensation benefits of one percent, or $125, were awarded to the dependents. This award was affirmed by the commission, and the dependents of the deceased employee appealed to the Circuit Court of Madison County, and that court affirmed the order of the Workmen’s Compensation Commission. The claimant appealed to this Court.

It was found as a matter of law that the deceased employee’s death was causally related to the duties of his employment. Implicit therein was the finding that the duties of his employment substantially contributed to his death. A mere nominal sum may not be awarded when there is liability for death benefits.

We, therefore, reverse the order of the circuit court which affirmed the order of the commission awarding nominal compensation and remand the case to the commission for the sole purpose of applying the apportionment statute by awarding substantial benefits to decedent’s dependents.

Reversed and remanded to the commission.

All Justices concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1







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







In connection with the Annual Report of Goa Sweet Tours Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Chuntan Vernekar, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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.







By: /s/ Chuntan Vernekar

Chuntan Vernekar
Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer

Date: August 25, 2010





























---
255 La. 276

#### SALES PURCHASE CORPORATION v. George W. BARNES et al.

No. 50263.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1970.

In re: Sales Purchase Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Parish of Ouachita. 228 So.2d 155.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
Exhibit 8.1



List of Subsidiaries



|                                       |  |  |  |                             
|-------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------
|Subsidiaries:                          |  |  |  | Jurisdictionof Incorporation
|                                       |  | 
|Chongqing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.    |  |  |  | PeoplesRepublic of China   
|Nanjing Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.      |  |  |  | PeoplesRepublic of China   
|Daqo Solar Energy North America        |  |  |  | UnitedStates of America     
|Xinjiang Daqo New Energy Co., Ltd.     |  |  |  | PeoplesRepublic of China   
|Dago New Energy Holdings (Canada) Ltd. |  |  |  | Ontario,Canada              
|                                       |  | 
|Variable Interest Entity:              |  |  |  |                             
|Daqo New Material Co. Ltd.             |  |  |  | PeoplesRepublic of China
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1717 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1717

  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make permanent the 
 protections under Medicaid for recipients of home and community-based 
                services against spousal impoverishment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 9, 2021

Mr. Upton (for himself and Mrs. Dingell) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to make permanent the 
 protections under Medicaid for recipients of home and community-based 
                services against spousal impoverishment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Married Seniors from 
Impoverishment Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. MAKING PERMANENT THE PROTECTION UNDER MEDICAID FOR RECIPIENTS 
              OF HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AGAINST SPOUSAL 
              IMPOVERISHMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1924(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1396r-5(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``(at the option of 
the State) is described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI)'' and 
inserting the following: ``is eligible for medical assistance for home 
and community-based services provided under subsection (c), (d), or (i) 
of section 1915, under a waiver approved under section 1115, or who is 
eligible for such medical assistance by reason of being determined 
eligible under section 1902(a)(10)(C) or by reason of section 1902(f) 
or otherwise on the basis of a reduction of income based on costs 
incurred for medical or other remedial care, or who is eligible for 
medical assistance for home and community-based attendant services and 
supports under section 1915(k)''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 2404 of the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-5) is amended by striking 
``September 30, 2023'' and inserting ``the date of the enactment of the 
Protecting Married Seniors from Impoverishment Act of 2021''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.1






January 19, 2018






Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549


RE:  Carnival Corporation, Commission File No. 001-9610, and 
        Carnival plc, Commission File No. 001-15136


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Pursuant to Item 601(b) (4) (iii) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc (the “Companies”) hereby agree to furnish copies of certain long-term debt instruments to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon the request of the Commission and, in accordance with such regulation, such instruments are not being filed as part of the joint Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Companies for their year ended November 30, 2017. 


Very truly yours,


CARNIVAL CORPORATION AND CARNIVAL PLC






/s/ Arnaldo Perez    
General Counsel and Secretary
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the report of Empire Post Media, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in his capacity, as both Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





/s/ Peter DunnPeter DunnPresident (Principal Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)February 25, 2011
Nicholas Courtney

Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC

4852 E Kentucky Ave, Unit B

Denver CO, 80246

Specific Title 14 federal regulations sections in which Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC is 

seeking an exemption: 

45.23 (b), 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.9 (b) (2), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a) & (b), 

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b)

These exemptions are requested concerning commercial operation of a DJI Phantom 3 

Professional Unmanned Aircraft Systems(UAS, and hereby referred to as such), pursuant to 

Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-95)

Extent of relief and our reason for seeking relief: 

In order to use our UAS for commercial use. We are seeking these exemptions in order to 

legally engage in business and comply with all federal regulations and standards put forth by the 

FAA while operating our UAS. 

How our request would benefit the public: 

Granting these exemption requests for Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC would allow for us to 

be able to efficiently, legally, economically, and safely perform aerial videography and 

photography of special events, sporting events, land surveillance, real estate, commercial 

inspections, and commercial maintenance over certain areas of the United States. My services 

could lead to more and faster home sales, for just one example. Also, many of these productions 

would typically use manned helicopters that needlessly put human lives at risk. This would no 

longer be the case with the use of our UAS systems. Further, inspections

of structures can be performed without endangering the inspector or inhibiting local

industrial or public operations with ladders, lifts, or other equipment.

Reasons why these exemptions would not adversely affect safety:

Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC would STRICTLY adhere to the FAA regulations regarding 

UAV flight. These include, but are not limited to: Not flying within 5 miles of an airport 

without notification of said airport, not exceeding 200ft elevation, not flying within 15 miles of 

the White House, not flying in National Parks, and always keeping the UAS in line of sight. A 

maintenence check is performed on the UAS after, and before, each flight. Safety for myself and 

the general public is my top priority. 

Summary
Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC is seeking relief from the requirements of Title 14 of the code 

of federal regulations sections, pursuant to section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform 

Act of 2012:

45.23 (b), 61.113(a) & (b), 91.7(a), 91.9 (b) (2), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a) & (b), 

91.405(a), 91.409(a)(1) & (a)(2), and 91.417(a) & (b)

We are seeking these exemptions in order to use our UAS for commercial purposes. 

Nicholas Courtney

Colorado Aerial Productions, LLC

4852 E Kentucky Ave, Unit B

Denver CO, 80246

Colorado.Aerial.Productions@gmail.com
Motion Granted; Appeal Reinstated; Reversed and Remanded; and

Memorandum Opinion filed March 21, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-22-00359-CV

____________

OILFIELD TUBULAR SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A INTEGRATED

TUBULAR SOLUTIONS, Appellant

V.

THE CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY AS SUBROGEE OF 

AMTEX MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-90071

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a final judgment signed February 14, 2022. On February 

16, 2022, appellant filed an agreed motion seeking to set aside the judgment in 

accordance with a settlement agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B) (noting 

that courts of appeals may, “[i]n accordance with an agreement signed by the parties 

or their attorneys and filed with the clerk, . . . set aside the trial court’s judgment 
2

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of 

judgment in accordance with the agreement”). The motion is granted.

We reinstate the appeal and reverse and remand for proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. We further order that the conditions of liability for the deposit in 

lieu of bond to supersede the reversed judgment are extinguished, and that the Harris 

County District Clerk release the deposited funds in the trial court’s registry to 

appellant through its counsel of record.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Wilson.
| 1. | I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SLC Student Loan Trust 2009-3 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by the report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |
|-------------------------------|
| By:  /s/ Joseph P. Guage |
| Joseph P. Guage               |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

National Institutes of Health

NIH Publication Number: 08-5032 

Reprinted September 2008

For additional copies of this card contact:

National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research

National Oral Health Information Clearinghouse

1 NOHIC Way

Bethesda, MD 20892-3500

301-402-7364

www.nidcr.nih.gov

This publication is not copyrighted. 

Make as many photocopies as you need.
An oral cancer exam is painless and quick — it takes 

only a few minutes. Your regular dental check-up is 

an excellent opportunity to have the exam.

Here’s what to expect:

Preparing for the exam: If you have 

dentures (plates) or partials, you will be 

asked to remove them.

Your health care provider will inspect 

your face, neck, lips and mouth to look 

for any signs of cancer.

With both hands, he or she will feel the area 

under your jaw and the side of your neck, checking for lumps that may suggest cancer.

Next, your provider will have you stick 

out your tongue so it can be checked for 

swelling or abnormal color or texture.

In addition, he or she will look at the 

roof and floor of your mouth, as well as 

the back of your throat.

He or she will then look at and feel the 

insides of your lips and cheeks to check 

for possible signs of cancer, such as red 

and/or white patches. 

Using gauze, he or she will then gently 

pull your tongue to one side, then the 

other, to check the base of your tongue. 

The underside of your tongue will also 

be checked.

Finally, your provider will put one finger 

on the floor of your mouth and, with the 

other hand under your chin, gently press 

down to check for lumps or sensitivity.

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)





I, Alyson M. Mount, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





Date:  March 27, 2015








By: /s/ Alyson M. Mount





Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

ROBERTO MARTINEZ-NIETO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-10213

D.C. No. 4:09-CR-00001-JMRBPV-1

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

John M. Roll, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 11, 2012** 

San Francisco, California

Before: HUG, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Roberto Martinez-Nieto appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence for

illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

JUN 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

Although the magistrate judge did not fully comply with Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, this does not constitute plain error because

Martinez fails to show a reasonable probability that, but for the errors, he would

not have entered his guilty plea. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S.

74, 83 (2004). 

The district court did not err by applying a sixteen-level enhancement under

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) for Martinez’s prior conviction of forcible lewd acts

upon a child under 14 years old in violation of California Penal Code § 288(b). 

Because a violation of California Penal Code § 288(a) categorically constitutes

“sexual abuse of a minor” and is a “crime of violence” under the Sentencing

Guidelines, United States v. Medina-Villa, 567 F.3d 507, 516 (9th Cir. 2009), and

because California Penal Code § 288(a) “is a lesser or necessarily included offense

of [§ 288(b)],” see People v. Ward, 233 Cal. Rptr. 477, 485 (Ct. App. 1986),

Martinez’s conviction under § 288(b), like convictions under § 288(a),

categorically constitutes a “crime of violence” for sentencing enhancement

purposes.

Martinez’s argument that the district court erred when it denied Martinez’s

request for a downward departure fails because, reviewing only for reasonableness,

see United States v. Mohamed, 459 F.3d 979, 986–87 (9th Cir. 2006), the record
3

reflects that Martinez’s mid-Guidelines sentence was reasonable in light of the

totality of the circumstances and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

AFFIRMED.