alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable A. K. Harrison cm&Yc~t$w parls, Texas Attention: Dear sir2
08 of a oartified e birth record of

Youhave re

**0r** the father or t be identified, th or death oertiand provided ther of an iles to makeas to Its parentIn the form of au affidavit, rlglnal birth reoord. Bleithar nor ang looal registrar led copy of any birth or erain a child or an adult Is stated t illegitimate, unless suoh oertlfled oopy ls ordered by a Court of oompetent jurisdiction. ’

I Your question arises from the feat that neither the

Constitution nor the statutes oi this State grant to any oourtHonorable A. W. Harrison,page 2

spwolflo juriadlotlon to order the 188uanceof a certifiedcopy of the birth record of an lllegltlmateohlld.

Section 8 ofArticle 5 of the Constitutionof Texas, ti addition to conferringupon the dlstriot court jurlrdlotlon in the particular kind8 of oases therein named, further provides that saiddlstrlot oourt 'shallhave general original jurlsdlction over all Cause8 of aotlonwhatever forvhioh a remedy or jur18dIotlon18not providedby law or thisConetltutlon. This oonstitutlonalprovisionhas been carried forvard into our statutes. Artlole 1909, V. R. C. 9.

Chief JusticeHemphill, in upeaklng of the juriadlotion of the distriot oourt, raid;

'The only Inquiry tobe made at the lnatltutlon of a sult 18 vhwther the fact8 of the care are ouch a8 to entitle a paPtr to ajudgment In hi8 favor in either lau or equity;and if he have rights oognlsable by wither, 8uohrelief rlll be adjudgedbr the court a8 the nature of the oaae demands.' 4 Teraa 109, 114. It 18 thereforeour opinion that the dI8trlot oourts have jurirblotion, upon proper petition, to order the 18suanoe of a.oertitled cop7 of the birth reoord of au IUegItlmate ohildafter 8uoh ohlld is no longer aminor. Your8 very truly ATTORHEY WIIERAL OF TEXAS

W. R. Allen A8alstant
PUBLIC

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Alvaro M. Bedoya

DOCKET NO. 9408

ORDER FURTHER EXTENDING DEADLINE 

FOR COMMISSION DECISION ON APPEAL 

On December 11, 2023, the Commission issued an order providing for a brief, one-week 

extension until January 11, 2024, of the Commission’s deadline to decide Respondent’s Appeal 

of the Initial Decision. The Commission explained that, in light of the extensive factual record in 

this matter, an extension would facilitate appropriate consideration of the competing factual and 

legal arguments presented. The Commission now finds that an additional short extension is 

needed to facilitate full consideration of the issues. The Commission therefore finds good cause, 

pursuant to 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b), to further extend to January 19, 2024, the deadline to issue its

final decision.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the deadline for issuing the Commission’s final 

decision addressing Respondent’s Appeal of the Initial Decision in this proceeding is extended 

until January 19, 2024.

By the Commission.

April J. Tabor

Secretary

SEAL:

ISSUED: 1/9/2024

In the Matter of

Intuit Inc., 

 a corporation.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2010-NM-243-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### Beulah B. GREMILLION v. James A. HARVEL et al. Beulah B. GREMILLION v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY et al. James R. PARKER v. Maurice GUATHIER et al.

No. 54274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 25, 1974.

In re: James R. Parker applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 285 So.2d 294.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 580

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that income of

certain spouses will not be aggregated for purposes of the limitations

of sections 401(a)(17) and 404(l) of such Code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. COBLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that income of certain spouses will not be aggregated

for purposes of the limitations of sections 401(a)(17)

and 404(l) of such Code.

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

3 That (a) paragraph (17) of section 401(a) of the Internal

4 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the last sen5 tence and inserting the following: ‘‘In determining the

6 compensation of an employee, the rules of section

7 414(q)(9) shall apply; except that—
2

•HR 580 IH

1 ‘‘(A) in applying such rules, the term ‘fam2 ily’ shall only include the spouse of the em3 ployee and any lineal descendants of the em4 ployee who have not attained age 19 before the

5 close of the year, and

6 ‘‘(B) such rules shall not attribute com7 pensation between spouses if both of such

8 spouses are licensed to perform services in the

9 same professional field and perform services in

10 such field on a full-time basis for the em11 ployer.’’

12 (b) Subsection (l) of section 404 is amended by strik13 ing the last sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘In de14 termining the compensation of an employee, the rules of

15 section 414(q)(6) shall apply; except that—

16 ‘‘(1) in applying such rules, the term ‘family’

17 shall only include the spouse of the employee and

18 any lineal descendants of the employee who have not

19 attained age 19 before the close of the year, and

20 ‘‘(2) such rules shall not attribute compensation

21 between spouses if both of such spouses are licensed

22 to perform services in the same professional field

23 and perform services in such field on a full-time

24 basis for the employer.’’
3

•HR 580 IH

1 (c) The amendments made by this section shall apply

2 to years beginning after the date of the enactment of this

3 Act.

Æ
Exhibit 99.1








August 18, 2014Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Stephanie Higgins918-591-5026





ONEOK Partners to Participate in Citi MLP Conference





TULSA, Okla. – Aug. 18, 2014 – ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the Citi One-on-One Master Limited P artnership/Midstream Infrastructure Conference on Wednesday and Thursday, Aug. 20-21, 2014, in Las Vegas, Nevada.





Terry K. Spencer, ONEOK Partners president and chief executive officer, and Derek S. Reiners, ONEOK Partners senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, will conduct a series of one-on-one meetings with investment-community representatives at the conference.





The materials used at the conference will be accessible on ONEOK Partners’ website, www.oneokpartners.com , on Wednesday, Aug. 20, beginning at 5 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (7 a.m. Central Daylight Time).





ONEOK Partners, L.P. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKS) is one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships in the United States and is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  Its general partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE), a pure-play, publicly traded general partner, which owns 38.5 percent of the overall partnership interest, as of June 30, 2014.


For more information, visit the website at www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKPartners .





###
#### Georgia Mae PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-322.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Criminal Court of Record, Orange County; W. Rogers Turner, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### George Leon WILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-746.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 11, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 10.1b**

**AMENDMENT NO. 2**

**Effective November 20, 2008**

**TO**

**THE PMI GROUP, INC.**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN**

**(Amended September 19, 2007)**

THE PMI GROUP, INC., having adopted The PMI Group, Inc. Amendedand Restated Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) as of May 27, 2004, and having amended and restated the Plan as of November 16, 2005, and again as of September 19, 2007, and further having amended it effective as ofNovember 14, 2007, hereby amends the restated Plan as follows effective as of November 20, 2008: 

Section 8.1, “Grant ofStock Units,” of SECTION 8, “NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR AWARDS,” is amended to read as follows: 

8.1 Grant ofStock Units. On the first business day on or after April 15, July 15, October 15 and January 15 of each year, each individual then serving as a Non-employee Director automatically shall be granted Stock Units withan initial value of $4,000, each Stock Unit valued at the Fair Market Value per Share, but in no event shall any Non-employee Director receive more than 2,500 Stock Units in any** **calendar quarter. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The PMI Group, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this Amendment No. 2 to the restated Plan on the dateindicated below.
EXHIBIT  32.1

                  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                     RULE 15d-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the annual report of Rick's Cabaret International, Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Eric  S. Langan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec.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: January 24, 2006                         By: /s/ Eric S. Langan
                                                   ------------------
                                               Eric S. Langan
                                               Chief Executive Officer
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 annual report of Network CN Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A, Amendment No. 1 for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Earnest Leung, Chief Executive 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:





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/ Earnest LeungEarnest LeungChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





January 28,2011


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Network CN Inc. and will be retained by Network CN Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
Exhibit 32.1

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

Solely for the purposes of complying with, and the extent required by 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned certifies, in his capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of Forlink
Software Corporation, Inc., that, to his knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 to the
Annual Report of the company on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,
2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the company's financial condition and
results of operations.

April 27, 2006


/s/ Yi He
------------------------------
Yi He, Chief Executive Officer
#### Elmo Joseph MATRANGA v. FIRST MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL BANK, Executor of the Estate of Martha H. Matranga, Deceased.

No. 49929.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 24, 1978.

Ross R. Barnett, Jr., Abe A. Rotwein, Jackson, for appellant.

McLaurin, Nicols & Kelly, John C. McLaurin, Jr., Alfred G. Nicols, Jr., Brandon, for appellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ., and JAMES E. BOST, Commissioner.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concurring.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-49549, No. 333-59855, No. 333-30561, No. 
333-89908 and No. 333-64477) and Form S-3 (No. 333-44559, No. 333-30473, No. 
333-70937, and No. 333-45463) of our report dated April 20, appearing on 
page 51 of P-Com, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 
31, 1998.




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
April 20, 1999
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.8
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (333-01574), (333-12789) and (333-24581); on Form S-3 (333-10383)
and (333-14025); and on Form S-4 (333-13133) of our report dated February 8,
1996 with respect to the financial statements of The Re-Print Corporation for
the years ended December 31, 1995 and 1994 of U.S. Office Products Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended April 26, 1997.
 
                                          BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
 
Atlanta, Georgia
July 2, 1997
#### Jose RIPOLL, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PROFESSIONS BOARD OF PHARMACY, Respondent.

No. 73-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

May 17, 1973.

Rehearing Denied June 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari denied.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-1124 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-041-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
#### Eugene PLEASANT, Petitioner, v. William R. HEIDTMAN, Sheriff, Palm Beach County, Respondent.

No. 73-590.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 18, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,365,036
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,540,328
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,530,523
<PP&E>                                      53,265,691
<DEPRECIATION>                              78,310,761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              44,503,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,011,866
<BONDS>                                     30,956,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,112,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                44,503,290
<SALES>                                      2,429,441
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,505,689
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  595,901
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               740,861
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             638,881
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 42,668
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,668
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,668
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CITY OF PH ILADELPHIA Department of Public Health

Environmental Protection Division Air Management Services



### InterOffice Memo

To: File

From: Edward Wiener & Kassahun Sellassie

Date: Dec 08, 2014

Subject: 8-Hour RACT Analysis for Exelon Generating Company - Delaware Station

Introduction:

The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas implement reasonably available control technology (RACT) controls on all major sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Philadelphia County is part of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City moderate ozone nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. This document presents the findings of the reevaluation of NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for this facility

Company Description:

Exelon (formerly PECO) - Delaware Station owns and oper ates an electric utility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Equipment currently used at the facility includes four simple cycle combustion turbines. The facility was owned by PECO Energy Company at the time of the original RACT plan approval, but changed to ownership to Exelon in

October 2000

Applicability for NOx and VOC RACT:

Exelon - Delaware Station is a major source of NOx due to having potential NOx emissions greater than 100 tons per year, the major source threshold in Philadelphia County that is applicable to NOx RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. They are not a major so urce of VOC, due to having potential VOC emissions not greater than 50 tons per year, the major source threshold in Philadelphia County that is applicable to NOx RACT for the 1997 8-

hour ozone.

Process Descriptions:

Exelon - Delaware Station currently has four combustion turbines, three rated 15.5 MW and one at 17.5 MW. All units burn #2 oil. These are the only NOx emission source s at the facility. The facility had three boilers and one emergency generator that were part of the original 1-hour RACT analysis for the facility, but since have shut down and are not listed in current Title V operating permit for the f acility (No. V11-038). Boilers No 71 and 81 were shut down in 2004, the auxiliary boiler around 2005, and the emergency generator around 2006.

NOx RACT Analysis for the 8-hour Ozone Standard:

Each combustion turbine accepted a 5% an nual capacity factor in the RACT Pl an Approval (PA Pe rmit Number 51- 4904) dated July 11, 2001 and is covered under the presumptive RACT limitations of 25 PA Code Section 129.93(c)(5). Therefore, the only remaining significant NOx sources at the facility (the combustion turbines) are covered by Pennsylvania’s presumptive RACT. No further analysis is needed for 8-hour RACT.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

It is recommended that the 1-hour ozone RACT in the RACT Plan Approval (PA Permit Number 51-4901) dated July 11, 2001 still be considered to represent NOx RACT for the 8-hour ozone standard for the Exelon - Delaware

Station.1 / 9 / 1 5

Edward Wiener, Chief of Source Registration Date