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

AUSTIN 

i 

!: 

. 

i i

I 

1 

I I 

1 

! 
$2 / 

Jlonorcblo n. v. Rayford - page 2 

, 

attached hereto) gberein uo considered the legality of 

au appropriation from the General Bbnd of the couuty by 

,the Conndssicners~ COW% to be expended in the interest 

of flood oontrol through a oousemation and roclapation 

district. Ue rulad against the validity of such an espmditure, saying, 'Ue ham mde au sxhaustivs search 

of the Constitution and the statutes of Tez-zm, including the Act creating this district, aud have found no 

express or impllsd authority where Por the Cormdssionors* Court to make such appropriation.m 

We haye in the present instance nzade a oareful 

study of the Act crsatiug soil conservation districts aud 

fiud notM.ng t&rein, if such content could constitutionally enter into such a bill, that would authorize the Corntissionerst Court of a county ezzbraced within such conseroation~d%strict to m&e the donation suggested by you. 

aIor20vor, ths st$ute authorising State c0nsamation districts shows the policy of the State Prith respect to such 

so11 preservation aud negatives, impliedly at least, ths 

authority of counties as such to engage in such activiti33. 

Vary truly yours 

APFOVRD APR 18,~1941- ATTOllXZY GiXWLk OF !K$XAS 

_. . ~- -~-. 

FIRST ASSISTAMT 

i\?;TORgEY GENERAL 

06-m * 

Suclosure
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 763 

To authorize States to enforce pipeline safety requirements related to 

wellbores at interstate storage facilities. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 18, 2013 

Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. MORAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To authorize States to enforce pipeline safety requirements 

related to wellbores at interstate storage facilities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Underground Gas 

5 Storage Facility Safety Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 Section 60101(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 763 IS

1 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (20), (21), 

2 (22), (23), (24), and (25) as paragraphs (23), (24), 

3 (25), (20), (21), and (22), respectively; 

4 (2) in paragraph (21), as redesignated, by 

5 striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

6 (3) in paragraph (22), as redesignated, by 

7 striking the period at the end and inserting a semi8 colon; and 

9 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(26) ‘underground gas storage wellbore’ means 

11 the piping and hole drilled connecting the surface of 

12 the earth with the underground gas storage res13 ervoir; and 

14 ‘‘(27) ‘underground hazardous liquid storage 

15 wellbore’ means the piping and hole drilled con16 necting the surface of the earth with the under17 ground hazardous liquid storage reservoir.’’. 

18 SEC. 3. STATE ENFORCEMENT OF PIPELINE SAFETY RE19 QUIREMENTS. 

20 Section 60104(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 

21 amended— 

22 (1) by striking ‘‘A State authority that’’ and in23 serting the following: 

24 ‘‘(1) A State authority that’’; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 763 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘A State authority may not’’ 

2 and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(2) A State authority may not’’; 

4 (3) by striking ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding 

5 sentence, a State authority may enforce a require6 ment’’ and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘(3) Notwithstanding the limitation set forth in 

8 paragraph (2), a State authority may— 

9 ‘‘(A) enforce a requirement’’; 

10 (4) by striking ‘‘chapter 61.’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘chapter 61; and’’; and 

12 (5) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(B) enforce a State requirement for the 

14 safe construction and operation of underground 

15 gas storage wellbores and underground haz16 ardous liquid storage wellbores if— 

17 ‘‘(i) the State requirement has been 

18 approved by the Federal Energy Regu19 latory Commission (referred to in this sub20 paragraph as the ‘Commission’); or 

21 ‘‘(ii) the Commission fails to make a 

22 decision with respect to the State require23 ment during the 30-day period beginning 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•S 763 IS

1 on the date on which the State submits the 

2 State requirement to the Commission.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

ELITE SPINE GROUP, INC. A/A/O 

MELIZA PEREZ,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-1056

 LT Case No. 2019-14691-CODL

FLORIDA INSURANCE GUARANTY 

ASSOCIATION,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed February 14, 2023

Appeal from the County Court 

for Volusia County, 

Angela Dempsey, Judge. 

Chad A. Barr, of Chad Barr Law, 

Altamonte Springs, for Appellant.

F. Bradley Hassell, of Hassell-Legal,

PA, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

EISNAUGLE, KILBANE and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7214

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENNARD HUTCHINSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CR-03-145; CA-04-786-3)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 1, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennard Hutchinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dennard Hutchinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Hutchinson has not made the requisite

showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hutchinson’s pro se “Motion to

Quash Indictment.” We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 19 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.19
                                         Agreed to June 27, 2013        

                     One Hundred Thirteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and thirteen

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
June 27, 2013, through Friday, July 5, 2013, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on Monday, 
July 8, 2013, or such other time on that day as may be specified by its 
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House 
adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, June 28, 2013, through 
Friday, July 5, 2013, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent 
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned 
until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 8, 2013, or until the time of any 
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Majority Leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the 
House, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation 
with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the 
House, shall notify the Members of the Senate and House, respectively, 
to reassemble at such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
Honorable R. L. Lattimore Criminal District Attorney Hidalgo County Edinburg, Texas Dear Mr. Lattimore: Opinion No. C- 418 Re: Whether Hidalgo County can pay an attorney appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases. You have requested an opinion ofthis office regarding the above question. The Commissioners Court is acourt oflimited jurisdiction and has only such powers as are conferred upon it by the statutes and Constitution ofthis State, whether by express terms or by necessary implication. Section 18, Article V, Constitution ofTexas; Article 2351, Vernon’s Civil Statutes; Bland ~Orr, 90 Tex. 492, 39S.W. 558 (1897); Mills vs Lamzns County, 90Tex. 603% S.W. 403 (1897); Anderson v. Wood,?%%%, 152S.W.2d 1084 --- (1941); Canales vs. Laughlin, 147Tex. 169, 214S.W.Zd 451 (1948);sarr County

--- vs. Guerra, 297 S.W.2d 379 (Tex.Civ.App. 1956); Van Rosenberg v. Lovett, 173S.W. 508 (Civ.App. 1915, error ref.). Article 494a, Section 1,Vernon’s Code ofCriminal Procedure, provides for payment to counsel appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants infelony cases. No authority is found in the law ofthis State authorizing payment to attorneys appointed by the court to represent indigent defendants in misdemeanor cases. - SUMMARY

Hidalgo County cannot pay attorneys appointed to represent indigent defendants inmisdemeanor cases. Yours very truly,

REO:sss Assistant -1972-Hon. R. L. Lattimore, page 2(C-418)

APPROVED: OPINION CO&fMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Reeves Milton Richardson Sam Kelley Brady Coleman APPROVEDFOR THEATTORNEYGENERAL BY: Stanton Stone

-1973-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          68,389
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,574
<INVENTORY>                                    112,278
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               487,696
<PP&E>                                       1,015,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                 439,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,195,699
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          294,724
<BONDS>                                        304,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           22,238
<PREFERRED>                                        233
<COMMON>                                           432
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,195,699
<SALES>                                      1,254,796
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,254,796
<CGS>                                        1,117,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,220,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,401)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,338
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,518)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,391)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,127)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,127)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        

</TABLE>
## CountyAdministrator Historic Courthouse · 326 Laurel Street, Suite 13• Brainerd, MN 5640l

. •. • 218-824-l067 

### TimothyJ. Houle

August 16, 2012

Mr. Rick Adair, Manager Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport Commission 16384Airport Road, Suite 5 Brainerd, MN 56401. Dear Mr. Adair: The Crow Wing County Board ofCommissioners took action attheir meeting held on August 14, 2012, to support the Brainerd Lakes Regional Airport Commission's research into commercial air service, based on the information provided, and as SkyWest seems to be a reasonable proposal, the Board supports the Airport Commission moving forward with exploration.



### TJH:tn

OUR MISSION: To provide high <Itwlity, cost-effective !Hiblic services in a friendly and respeclful**m:ume1~**
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.37 MB)

Tags:LOGCOM, Logistics Command, OWSC, Open Water Safety Craft, ELMP, Enterprise Life Cycle Maintenance Program, Marine Corps Systems Command, MCSC

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this Quarterly Report
of Mojo Data Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2015, as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Joseph Spiteri, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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: September 6, 2018 | By: | /s/ Joseph Spiteri                                
|----------------------- | --- | --------------------------------------------------
|                        |     | Joseph Spiteri                                    
|                        |     | Chief Financial Officer, Mojo Data Solutions, Inc.

| |  | 
| |  |
Exhibit 32.01    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 Seville Ventures Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 31 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin Hall, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, 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 and belief:  (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/ Kevin Hall By: Kevin Hall Chief Executive Officer  Dated: October 15, 2012  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 10.32**

**AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

This Amendment to Employment Agreement(“**Amendment**”), dated July 1, 2011, is made by and between LifeVantage Corporation, a Colorado corporation (the “**Company**”), and Dr. Joe McCord (“**Dr. McCord**”), with respect to the followingfacts: 

A. The Company and Dr. McCord are parties to that certain Employment Agreement which was executed by both partieson or about June 20, 2011 (the “**Employment Agreement**”). 

B. The Employment Agreement contemplates aneffective date of April 1, 2011; however, from April 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011, the Company and Dr. McCord continued to conduct their relationship under the Scientific Advisory Board Agreement between the parties datedOctober 1, 2009 and effective through June 30, 2010, with an interim extended contract term through March 31, 2011. 

C. The Company and Dr. McCord desire to amend the Employment Agreement to correct the effective date thereof, as set forth in this Amendment. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual covenants contained in this Amendment, and intending to belegally bound, the Company and Dr. McCord agree as follows: 

1. **Amendment to Effective Date**. The defined term“Effective Date” under the Employment Agreement is hereby corrected and revised for all purposes thereunder to be July 1, 2011. 

2. **Effect on Employment Agreement**. Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, all terms, conditions and provisions of the EmploymentAgreement shall continue in full force and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall prevail.

3. **Entire Agreement**. The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, constitutes the complete and exclusive statementof the agreement between the parties, and supersedes all prior proposals and understandings, oral and written, relating to the subject matter contained herein. This Amendment shall not be modified or rescinded except in a writing signed by theparties. 

4. **Counterparts**. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts and may be delivered by facsimiletransmission or by electronic mail in portable document format (“**PDF**”) or other means intended to preserve the original graphic content of the signature. Each such facsimile or PDF counterpart shall constitute an original, and allof which, taken together, shall constitute one instrument. 

 
- 1 - 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed and delivered asof the date first written above. 

 
LifeVantage CorporationBy: /S/ DOUGLAS C. ROBINSONName: Douglas C. Robinson
Title:
 Chief Executive Officer
 
/S/ DR. JOE MCCORD
Dr. Joe McCord

 
- 2 -
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲ ▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL