alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-15-00907-CV

John Freeman Junior 

v.

Formosa Management, L.L.C.

NO. 2013-76492 IN THE 234TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

MT FEE

CLK RECORD

FILING

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$545.00

$205.00

01/02/2017

11/22/2016

05/02/2016

04/03/2016

02/16/2016

01/21/2016

01/04/2016

10/27/2015

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

E-PAID

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

ANT

ANT

APE

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$815.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment
I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this 25th day of May, 2018.
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of


DGT Holdings Corp.


Bay Shore, New York





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-172706, No. 333-38024, No. 333-69723, No. 333-09133, No. 033-65439, No. 033-78910, No. 033-52088 and No. 033-19772) of DGT Holdings Corp. of our report dated September 26, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP





Chicago, Illinois





September 26, 2011
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert W. Duggan, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my 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/Robert W. DugganRobert W. DugganChairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 7, 2011











CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Rainer M. Erdtmann, Vice President, Finance and Administration and Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my 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/Rainer M. ErdtmannRainer M. ErdtmannVice President, Finance and Administration and

Secretary (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)February 7, 2011
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3499

AMENDMENT
In the Senate of the United States,

October 7 (legislative day, September 12), 1994.

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 3499) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel Practices

Act’’, do pass with the following

AMENDMENT:

1 Page 2 after line 12, insert:

2 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CASH AWARDS TO CERTAIN FED3 ERAL OFFICERS.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 5, United States

5 Code, is amended by inserting after section 4507 the follow6 ing new sections:

7 ‘‘§ 4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential

8 election year

9 ‘‘(a) For purposes of this section, the term—

10 ‘‘(1) ‘Presidential election period’ means any pe11 riod beginning on June 1 in a calendar year in

12 which the popular election of the President occurs,

13 and ending on January 20 following the date of such

14 election; and

15 ‘‘(2) ‘senior politically appointed officer’ means

16 any officer who during a Presidential election period

17 serves—
2

HR 3499 EAS

1 ‘‘(A) in a Senior Executive Service position

2 and is not a career appointee as defined under

3 section 3132(a)(4); or

4 ‘‘(B) in a position of a confidential or pol5 icy-determining character under schedule C of

6 subpart C of part 213 of title 5 of the Code of

7 Federal Regulations.

8 ‘‘(b) No senior politically appointed officer may receive

9 an award under the provisions of this subchapter during

10 a Presidential election period.

11 ‘‘§ 4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive

12 Schedule officers

13 ‘‘No officer may receive a cash award under the provi14 sions of this subchapter, if such officer—

15 ‘‘(1) serves in—

16 ‘‘(A) an Executive Schedule position under

17 subchapter II of chapter 53; or

18 ‘‘(B) a position for which the compensation

19 is set in statute by reference to a section or level

20 under subchapter II of chapter 53; and

21 ‘‘(2) was appointed to such position by the

22 President, by and with the advice and consent of the

23 Senate.’’.

24 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The

25 table of sections for chapter 45 of title 5, United States
3

HR 3499 EAS

1 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to

2 section 4507 the following:

‘‘4508. Limitation of awards during a Presidential election year.

‘‘4509. Prohibition of cash award to Executive Schedule officers.’’.

Attest:

Secretary.
#### NOBLES v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO.

No. 36928.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So.2d 603.
#### Milton V. MILICH and Sylvia Milich, Petitioners, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY, etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 42679.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 19, 1972.

Respondents’ motion to dismiss is granted and it is ordered that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari be and the same is hereby dismissed.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DREW (Retired), JJ., concur.
$QF(function(a){a(document).on("click","#"+QF.cssPrefix+"infowindow-controls button[data-add]",function(b){var c="+1"==a(this).attr("data-action")?"add":"remove";document.body.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("QFA "+b.type,{detail:{application:"QuickFacts",eventName:"Place Selection",action:c,selection:a(this).attr("data-fullname")}}))});a(document).on("click","#qfcontent a.addgeo",function(b){document.body.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("QFA "+b.type,{detail:{application:"QuickFacts",eventName:"Place Selection",
action:"add",selection:a(this).attr("data-fullname")}}))});a(document).on("click","#qfcontent a.removegeo",function(b){document.body.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("QFA "+b.type,{detail:{application:"QuickFacts",eventName:"Place Selection",action:"remove",selection:a(this).attr("title")}}))});a(document).on("autocompleteselect","#"+QF.cssPrefix+"search-box",function(b,c){document.body.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("QFA "+b.type,{detail:{application:"QuickFacts",eventName:"Place Selection",action:"add",
selection:c.item.label}}))})});window.QFA={update:function(a,b){a=document.createEvent("Event");var c=document.createEvent("Event");a.initEvent("DOMContentLoaded",!0,!0);c.initEvent("load",!0,!0);document.dispatchEvent(a);document.dispatchEvent(c);console.log("QFA dcl and ld events dispached");document.body.dispatchEvent(new CustomEvent("QFA Page Load",{detail:{application:"QuickFacts",eventName:"Page Load",action:"load",selection:b}}))}};
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

              Name                                Jurisdiction of Organization
--------------------------------                  ----------------------------
Palm Harbor Finance Corporation                              Texas
Palm Harbor G.P., Inc.                                       Nevada
Standard Casualty Corp.                                      Texas
Better Homes Systems, Inc.                                   Washington
Palm Harbor Investments, Inc.                                Nevada
Palm Harbor Holding, Inc.                                    Nevada
Standard Insurance Agency, Inc.                              Texas
CountryPlace Mortgage, Ltd.                                  Texas
Palm Harbor Homes I, L.P.                                    Texas
First Home Mortgage Corporation                              Georgia
Palm Harbor Insurance Agency, Inc.                           New Mexico
Magic Living, Inc.                                           Nevada






                                       34
Order filed March 25, 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00720

- CV

____________ LUIS GARCIA DE LOS SALMONES AND MARIA GARCIA DE LOS SALMONES , Appellant

V. ANCHOR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the 234 th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2018

- 36029



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed November 3, 2020. Our review has determined
that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c). The r ecord does not contain the Emergency Motion to Remove Injunction filed in the 234th District Court on August 5, 2020.The Harris County district Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s

record on or before April 4, 2022 , containing Emergency Motion to Remove Injunction filed in the 234th District Court on August 5, 2020.
If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omit ted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewel l , Zimmerer, Hassan.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Review)]

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that revocation of the countervailing and antidumping duty orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.                

## Background

The Commission, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), instituted these reviews on March 1, 2018 (83 FR 8887) and determined on June 4, 2018 that it would conduct expedited reviews (83 FR 30193, June 27, 2018).

                    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on August 14, 2018. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4810 (August 2018), entitled                     *Drawn Stainless Steel Sinks from China: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-489 and 731-TA-1201 (Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: August 15, 2018.

Lisa Barton,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2018-17868 Filed 8-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7317** 

KENWOOD BRIGHT , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Orangeburg
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 5:16

- cv - 00247

- DCN )

Submitted : February 23, 2017 Decided: February 27, 2017

Before SHEDD and DIAZ , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Kenwood Bright , Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General , Caroline M. Scrantom , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bi nding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Kenwood Bright seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. W hen the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D
EXHIBIT 31.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Albert Blankenship, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of The Banker's Store, Inc.
(the "Registrant");

2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual
Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Annual 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 Annual Report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers 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 during the period in which this Annual 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 Annual Report based on such evaluation (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) Disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the Registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Dated: August 28, 2003                      /S/ ALBERT BLANKENSHIP
                                            -----------------------
                                            Albert Blankenship
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            (Principal Accounting and
                                            Financial Officer)
//K^T- *" _ SJSj>CySG*s FILEDIN fA<a7CZ& /^X^J S/aVO 1ST COURT OFAPPEALS ftA 1/&J *'/**/ HOUSTON. TEXAS 

# /Tfif fas"*/'"' T / *tJf*"* W*~> *-"-»« -frfrosj' 

# C/*A *< *****ft

•si -.1 O O l\) 

### 8 (71 li) li) 

# ^fv I £
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**  **

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

 

  

  Inconnection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation (the “Company”) forthe period ended  September 30, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Feize Zhang, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

  

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

  

    b) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in allmaterial aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

Dated:  November 14, 2012

 

CHINA SHOUGUAN MINING CORPORATION , Registrant

  

/s/ Feize Zhang

 

By: Feize Zhang, Principal Executive Officer
#### LUDLUM ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Haskell’s Restaurant and Lounge, and Haskell M. Lieberman, Appellants, v. PLASTICS DYNAMICS CORP., f/k/a Claude Southern Corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-809.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 30, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; E. Summers Sheffey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0437

Post-Focus Draft Revision 2 8/28/2012

ENGINEER: Austin \ JD

PV (kg/yr): 

Revision Notes / Assessment Overview: 

SUBMITTER: 

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Hand protection: The suitability for a specific

workplace should be discussed with the producers of the

protective gloves. Please observe the instructions

regarding permeability and breakthrough time which are

provided by the supplier of the gloves. Also take into

consideration the specific local conditions under which

the product is used, such as the danger of cuts, abrasion,

 and the contact time. Gloves should be discarded and

replaced if there is any indication of degradation or

chemical breakthrough. // Eye protection: Eye wash bottle

with pure water. Safety glasses. Wear face-shield and

protective suit for abnormal processing problems. // Skin

and body protection: Choose body protection according to

the amount and concentration of the dangerous substance

at the work place. Wear as appropriate:. Protective suit.

Safety shoes.

Respirator: Wear a supplied-air NIOSH approved respirator

unless ventilation or other engineering controls are

adequate to maintain minimal oxygen content of 19.5% by

volume under normal atmospheric pressure. Wear a NIOSH

approved respirator that provides protection when working

with this material if exposure to harmful levels of

airborne material may occur, such as:. Dust safety masks

are recommended when the dust concentration is excessive.

Use a positive pressure, air-supplying respirator if

there is potential for uncontrolled release, exposure

levels are not known, or other circumstances where
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]

air-purifying respirators may not provide adequate

protection.

Health Effects: Causes skin irritation. // Causes serious

eye irritation.

TLV/PEL:

None established.

CRSS :

Consumer Use: No

SAT (concerns) (07/17/2012):

Migration to groundwater: Slow

PBT rating: P2B1T1 .

Health: 1-2 Dermal, Inhalation, XB Testing

Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 11ppb.),

XB Testing

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 1A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]

POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSIDERATIONS:

P2 Claim: 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0437
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 12-0437
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]
file:///J|/INITENG/P12%20cases/p120437.en1.txt[11/7/2012 2:43:57 PM]
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.02

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-8 of our report dated January 27, 2000 relating to the
financial statements, which appears in Silicon Image, Inc.'s Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
San Jose, California
August 28, 2000
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Warren Michael SMITH.

No. 61933.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 7, 1978.

In re: Warren Michael Smith, applying for writs of certiorari. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.