alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I would like to get the ozone package cleared by Dec . 21

Lydia Wegman to: hking 12/15/2009 12:01 PM

Cc: dmancini

Bcc: Tricia Crabtree

Hi Heidi, 

I'm assuming that you know of the plan to postpone signature of the ozone package until Jan. 6. I believe 

we should still clear the package by Dec. 21, as originally planned. Given that we have received 

comments only from Cass to date, and that we are making changes to address his two points, we see no 

impediment to your clearing the rule by the 21st. In addition, I, as well as all of my relevant staff, plan to 

be out of the office from Dec. 23 to Jan. 4. Could you please call or write and let me know if you agree 

with getting the rule cleared by next Monday? Thanks a lot. 

I also left you a VM about this. 

Lydia
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 24, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 24, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0170. YA VAN v. SIV CHENG KONG AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHHENG VOIGT, DECEASED et al. .
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16C03207
Exhibit 32
                    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 Quarterly Report of Gold Standard, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending April 30, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Quarterly
Report"), We, Scott L. Smith, President and director and Bret C. Decker,
Secretary of our 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company.

Dated: 6/20/05                           /s/Scott L. Smith
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Scott L. Smith
                                         President and director


Dated: 6/20/05                           /s/Bret C. Decker
      --------------                     ---------------------------
                                         Bret C. Decker
                                         Secretary and director
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT PASCUAL BURCIAGA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-5538 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) 

### ) Opinion filed February 9, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County; James D. Sloan, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Matthew J. Salvia, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CRENSHAW, MORRIS, and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
#### ROBERT SIPPLE, Negro *vs.*ROGER ADAMS, Sheriff.

A commitment under .the statute against non-resident negroes, must show the offence, and the judgment in pursuance of the statute.

Habeas Corpus.

The sheriff returned that he had the complainant in custody, under a warrant of commitment from Justice Windsor, directed to S. A. Polk, constable, to the sheriff or jailer, and reciting that “whereas Robert Sipple, free negro, has this day been brought before the subscriber, one of the justices of the peace for said county, by virtue of a warrant by me issued on the 15th of September, 1.849, to answer to the charge of not leaving the State of Delaware, in compliance of a notice by me issued on the 17th day of August, 1849, directed to constable S. A. Polk, who returned the same, personally notified on the 22d day of August, 1849,” and being adjudged to pay a fine of thirty dollars to 0. F. Rust, being the informant, and also the costs of the process: these are therefore to command you the said constable forthwith to convey and deliver in the custody of the said sheriff or keeper of the said jail, the body of Robert Sipple, free negro; and you the said sheriff or keeper of said jail are hereby required to receive the said Robert Sipple, jr., free negro, into your custody in the said jail, and him there safely to keep until he be thence delivered according to due course of law.” Given under my band and seal, &c., &c.

To this return it was excepted—1. That the commitment did not set forth the cause of the defendant’s arrest or commitment. 2. That it set out no crime, or offence, or charge cognizable before a justice of the'peace. 3. That the fine imposed by the justice was illegal.

Layton.

The commitment alledges no offence. The complainant is not committed on *any*charge; nor to answer; but simply because he would not leave the State, on the order of the justice of the peace; who, for all that appears on the record, had no right to make such order.

*By the*Court.

We can only conjecture that this was a proceeding before the justice against the defendant, as a non-resident free negro, under the act of 1841, *Digest*410. This does not appear on the commitment, nor any authority of the justice to notify or order the defendant to leave the State; nor is any other offence charged—and this being a special power in the justice, and a penal law, *150it must appear by the commitment, under what law, and by what authority, and for what cause, the defendant was committed. For the want of this, he is discharged from custody.

Layton, for prisoner.
Exhibit 32.
1





CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








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), I, Howard S. Modlin,
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, William G.
Henry, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer,
each of General DataComm Industries, Inc. (the “Company”), do each hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge that:





(1) The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended  March
31, 2008 being filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





This Certification accompanies this
Form 10-Q as an exhibit, but shall not be deemed as having been filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or as a separate
disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officer.








/s/ Howard S.
      ModlinDate:
      May  15,
      2008
            Howard
      S. Modlin,Chairman
      of the Board, President andChief
      Executive Officer/s/ William G.
      HenryWilliam
      G. HenryVice
      President, Finance and Administrationand
      Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 99.28



CONSENT OF EHA
ENGINEERING LTD.



March 14, 2012



Brigus Gold Corp.

United States Securities and Exchange Commission



Re: Brigus Gold Corp.



Ladies and Gentlemen:



We hereby consent to (i) the use of our name in connection with
the following documents and reports, which are either referenced in or filed as exhibits with the Annual Report on Form 40-F for
the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Form 40-F”) of Brigus Gold Corp. (the “Company”) to which this consent
relates: (A) the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Technical Report, Pre-feasibility Study, Brigus Gold Corp., Goldfields
Project, Saskatchewan, Canada” dated effective October 6, 2011 (the “Report”), (B) the Company’s Annual
Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2011 and (C) the Company’s Management’s Discussion and Analysis for
the year ended December 31, 2011, (ii) the inclusion or incorporation by reference of information derived from the Report in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-113889, 333-162558 and 333-167757), as amended, and Form F-10 (File No. 333-174604),
as amended, or any related abbreviated registration statement filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
pursuant to Rule 462(b) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or in any amendment to any of the foregoing, or to any prospectuses
or amendments or supplements thereto and (iii) all other references to us included or incorporated by reference in the above-referenced
Registration Statements and in any prospectuses or amendments or supplements thereto.



Sincerely,



EHA Engineering Ltd.



|/s/ Alfred S. Hayden |                         
|-------------------- | ------------------------
|Name:                | Alfred S. Hayden, P.Eng.
|Title:               | Authorized person
The Honorable Joe Max Shelton 

Grayson County Attorney 

Third Floor, Courthouse 

Sherman, Texas 75090 

Opinion No. H- 918 

Re: Whether the Fire and 

Police Employee Relations 

Act, article 5154c-1, 

V.T.C.S., applies to 

sheriffs' departments. 

Dear Mr. Shelton: 

You have requested our opinion regarding the applicability 

of article 5154c-1, V.T.C.S., the Fire and Police Employee 

Relations Act, to sheriffs' departments. Article 5154c-1 

authorizes "firefighters and policemen" to engage in collective bargaining with their employers. "Policeman" is 

defined as 

each sworn certified full-time paid 

employee, whether male or female, who 

regularly serves in a professional law 

enforcement capacity in the police 

department of any city, town, or other 

political subdivision within the state, 

with the sole exception of the chief of 

the department. Section 3(2). 

Article 5154c-1 excludes the "chief of the department" 

from the coverage of the statute. It is unclear whether 

"chief" is employed here as a term of art referring to the 

common designation of the head of a city police department, 

or whether it is intended in a more general sense. It is 

clear, however, that a sheriff is not ordinarily denominated 

a "chief." It would appear, therefore, that had the Legislature 

intended to include sheriffs' departments within the terms 

of the statute, it would have written its exception specifically 

to exclude the sheriff from coverage. 

P. 3849 
The Honorable Joe Max Shelton - page 2 (H-918) 

Article 6869d creates in certain counties a "county 

police force" of not less than six patrolmen, to be appointed 

by the sheriff and approved by the commissioners court. If 

every deputy sheriff, by virtue of that position, already 

occupies the status of "police officer," article 6869d would 

be of no effect. 

In our opinion, then, article 5154c-1 is not applicable 

to most law enforcement officers within a sheriff's department. 

Those persons designated as county police officers pursuant 

to article 6869d, however, are embraced within the statute's 

coverage. Cf. Hartshorn v. 

915 (Pa. SuP.1975). - 

County of Allegheny, 333 A.2d 914, 

SUMMARY 

With the exception of those persons 

designated "county police officers" under 

article 6869d, V.T.C.S., article 5154c-1, 

the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act, 

is not applicable to law enforcement officers 

employed by a sheriff's department. 

APPROVED: 

!(ery,Fruly yours, 

,,/+Eg d?yJ&i.; 

.!JOHN L. HILL 

L..,.' Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID / M&d , / ,I 

C. ROBERT HEAm, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

P. 3850
#### Stanley FEDOR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-727.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 9, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Ronald PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-765.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 27, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, and Carl V. M. Coffin, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have reviewed the briefs and record on appeal and on the basis thereof we are of the opinion that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913, 88 S.Ct. 2073, 20 L.Ed.2d 1371; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771; and Wade v. *46State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572. See also Long v. United States, 1969, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 424 F.2d 799. Our determination, which is based upon a review of the record and a consideration of the applicable decisions, was not aided by the state’s brief which was not responsive to the matters under review.

The judgment appealed from is, therefore, affirmed.

CROSS, OWEN, and MAGER, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 104 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 104

Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for one-half of 
 the expenses of investigations and studies by the Joint Committee on 
   the Organization of the Congress in the first session of the One 
                        Hundred Third Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 24, 1993

Mr. Hamilton submitted the following resolution; which was referred to 
                 the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts from the contingent fund of the House for one-half of 
 the expenses of investigations and studies by the Joint Committee on 
   the Organization of the Congress in the first session of the One 
                        Hundred Third Congress.

    Resolved, That (a) for one-half of the expenses of investigations 
and studies by the Joint Committee on the Organization of the Congress 
(hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including expenses for procurement of consultant services under section 
202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, there shall be 
paid out of the contingent fund of the House not more than $495,000.
    (b) Not more than $50,000 of the amount specified in subsection (a) 
may be used for consultant services referred to in such subsection.
    Sec. 2. Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers 
signed by the House of Representatives co-chairman of the Committee and 
approved by the Committee on House Administration.
    Sec. 3. Amounts shall be available under this resolution for 
investigations and studies carried out during the period beginning at 
noon on January 3, 1993, and ending on December 31, 1993.
    Sec. 4. Amounts made available under this resolution shall be 
expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on 
House Administration.

                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


             FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
        WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHARES AND EARNINGS USED IN PER SHARE
                                   COMPUTATION
                        (DOLLARS AND SHARES IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED                   NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                     SEPTEMBER 30,                        SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           -------------------------------       -------------------------------
                                                               2002              2001               2002               2001
                                                           -------------     -------------       ------------      -------------
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>                <C>                <C>
The weighted average number of shares of
  Common Stock were as follows........................            90,000            90,000             90,000             90,000
                                                           =============     =============       ============      =============
</TABLE>


Income used in the computation of earnings per share were as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  THREE MONTHS ENDED                    NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                    SEPTEMBER 30,                         SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                           -------------------------------       -------------------------------
CONSOLIDATED                                                   2002              2001               2002               2001
                                                           -------------     -------------       ------------      -------------
<S>                                                        <C>              <C>                       <C>         <C>
Net earnings..........................................     $       36,408   $       31,946            111,560     $       85,866

Dividends paid on preferred stocks....................              (130)             (130)              (390)              (390)
                                                           -------------     -------------       ------------      -------------

Income used in per share computation of earnings......     $      36,278    $       31,816            111,170     $       85,476
                                                           =============     =============       ============      =============

Basic and fully dilutive earnings per share...........     $        0.40    $         0.35               1.24     $         0.95
                                                           =============     =============       ============      =============
</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 30, 2021

No. 04-21-00393-CV

IN RE Christopher RODRIGUEZ

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CI12197

Honorable Angelica Jimenez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

The real party-in-interest’s motion for an extension of time to file a response is 

GRANTED. The response is due on or before October 20, 2021.

It is so ORDERED on September 30, 2021.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
1 The petitioner also appear s to be chall enging guil ty pl eas to undiscl osed offenses in 1986 and 1984. T he reco rd, howe ver, does not conta in copies of these judgm ents. No netheles s, his cha llenge to these convictions under the post-conviction statute mu st also fail for the reason stated in this order.

2 The petition in this case was fil ed after May 1 0, 1995, and is therefore governed by the provision s of the 1 995 Po st-Con viction Pro cedure Act. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).



# FILED
February 3, 1999 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate C ourt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT JA CKSON BOBBY J. LOVE, ) ) Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9809-CR-00261 ) vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) No. P-20160 ) Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court u pon the state’s motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court i n accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Crimi nal Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the peti tioner’s petition for post-conviction rel ief. On July 22, 1998, the petitioner filed a post-convi ction petition challenging the val idity of his guilty plea to robbery with a deadly weapon in 1988. 1 The petition er alleges numerou s errors at the guilty p lea heari ng, includ ing the ine ffecti ve assistance of counsel and the failur e to advise him that the conv iction could be used to enhance future sentences. Finding that the statute of limitations ha d expired, the trial court dismissed the petition with out a hearing.

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202( a) 2 , a person in custody under a sentence of a court of this state must petiti on for post-conviction r elief within one year of the date of the final action of the highest state app ellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if no appeal is taken, withi n one year of the date on whic h judgment became final. The Post-Conviction Proc

edure Act provides sev eral limited exceptions

to the one-year statute of limitations, howev er none of them are applicable to the present case. See § 40-30-202(b). The petition i n this case was filed w ell beyond the applicable statute of3 The pe tition would als o be bar red und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See T.C.A . § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State , 891 S.W .2d 619, 624 (Tenn. Crim . App.), perm. to app. deni ed , (Tenn. 1994). 2 limitati ons, and is, there fore, un timely. 3 Accordingly, the post-conviction court properly dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. T.C.A. § 40-30-206(b).

The state’s motion is granted . Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by order in acc ordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals . It appearing to the Cour t that the petitioner is in digent, costs of this proceeding sh all be taxed to the state.

________________________________ JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

________________________________ DAVID G. HAYES, JUDG E

________________________________ JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE