alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3

                              GUARANTEE UNDERTAKING
                                       OF
                             THE ASSISTANT TREASURER
                                       OF
                                    AT&T INC.

          I, Charles P. Allen, the Assistant Treasurer of AT&T Inc. (the
"Corporation"), pursuant to the authority granted to me in the Schedule of
Authorizations of the Corporation, dated as of November 18, 2005, hereby
undertake on behalf of the Corporation for the benefit of the respective holders
of the Subject Debt Security (as defined below), as follows:

     (1) The Corporation hereby unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees the
     punctual and full payment of all amounts payable by BellSouth Corp. under
     the outstanding Subject Debt Security as and when the same shall become due
     and payable (whether at stated maturity, by declaration of acceleration,
     call for redemption, repayment at the option of the holder or otherwise, in
     accordance with the terms of the Subject Debt Security and of the indenture
     under which such security was issued) (the "Guarantee").

     (2) The Guarantee with respect to the outstanding Subject Debt Security
     will continuously remain in effect until the entire principal of (and
     premium, if any) and interest, if any, on such Subject Debt Security shall
     have been paid in full.

     (3) The Guarantee will constitute the direct, absolute and unconditional,
     unsubordinated and unsecured obligation of the Corporation ranking pari
     passu with all of its unsecured and unsubordinated obligations.

     (4) The holders of the Subject Debt Security are entitled to enforce their
     rights under the indenture relating to such security directly against the
     Corporation, without first instituting a proceeding against the issuer of
     such security or any other person or entity, upon any event of default in
     payment of principal, or premium, if any, or interest, if any, on such
     security (whether at stated maturity, by declaration of acceleration, call
     for redemption, repayment at the option of the holder or otherwise).

     (5) This Guarantee undertaking is enforceable to the fullest extent
     permitted by law.

     (6) For the purposes of this Guarantee undertaking, the term "Subject Debt
     Security" shall mean the following:

<PAGE>

     BellSouth Corp.'s Two Year Floating Rate Notes due August 15, 2008 ($1.2
     billion principal amount).

     (7) The Guarantee is effective on the date hereof.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have executed this Guarantee undertaking.

Dated: December 29, 2006


                                        /s/ Charles P. Allen
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Name: Charles P. Allen
                                        Title: Managing Director - Assistant
                                               Treasurer
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00203

- CV Timothy Dewayne OFFORD , Appellant

v. Joe L. CUELLAR Sr., Matilda Cuellar, and Joe Louis Cuellar Jr., Appellees From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar Co unty, Texas Trial Court No. 2010CI03352 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 4, 2014
DIS MISSED When Timothy D. Offord filed this appeal, he was required to pay a $195.00 filing fee. See
T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE S UPREME C OURT AND THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS AND B EFORE THE J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT
L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127, Aug. 16, 2013). Because Offord did not pay the filing fee, the clerk of this court notified him by letter dated March 26, 2014, that his notice of appeal was conditionally filed and the filing fee was due no later than April 9, 2014.04

- 14

- 00203

- CV In addition, the trial court clerk filed a notification of late record, stating that the clerk’s record, which was due May 5, had not been filed because Offord had not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and is not entitled to the record without paying the fee.
On May 9, 2014, we therefore ordered Offord to either (1) provide written proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused from prepaying fees and costs or (2) pay the appellate filing fee and pro vide written proof that he has paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record . Our order advised Offord that if he failed to file a satisfactory response to our order by May 19, 2014, his appeal would be dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 37.3(b); 42.3(c). Offord has not paid the appellate filing fee or filed a ny response to our May 9, 2014 order. We therefore dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution

.

PER CURIAM

- 2

-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY RYAN REGULA,

Petitioner

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 717 MAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of March, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 22

- 00692

- CR The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v. Billy RODOLFO RAMIREZ , Appellee From the 49th Judicial District Court , Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022CVK001350D1 Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Sitting: Irene Rios , Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 27, 2023
AFFIRMED The State appeals the trial court’s order granting Billy Rodolfo Ramirez habeas relief. We affirm.
B ACKGROUND As part of Operation Lone Star, Billy Rodolfo Ramirez , a noncitizen, was arrested for trespassing on private property in Webb County. He filed an application for writ of habeas corpus seeking dismissal of the criminal charge based on a violation of his state and federal rights to equal protection. Specifical ly, Rodolfo Ramirez asserted that the State of Texas was engaging in04

- 22

- 00692

- CR

- 2

- selective prosecution because only men were being charged with misdemeanor criminal trespass. The trial court granted Rodolfo Ramirez ’s requested relief, and the State appealed.
D ISCUSSION In State v. Del Campo

- Chavez , we considered a State’s appeal from a grant of habeas relief to a male OLS defendant who sought dismissal of his misdemeanor criminal trespass charge on equal protection grounds. ___ S.W.3d ___, No. 04

- 22

- 00737

- CR, 2023 WL 4916433, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 2, 2023, no pet. h.). Del Campo

- Chavez argued the State selectively prosecuted him on the basis of his gender. See id

. The State responded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, Del Campo

- Chavez’s equal protection claim based on gender was not cognizable, and Del Campo

- Chavez failed to carry his burden to prove the prosecution was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. See id . (citing Ex parte Aparicio , No. 04

- 22

- 00623

- CR, 2023 WL 4095939, at *1, *8

– 12 ( Tex. App.

— San Antonio June 21, 2023, pet. filed) (en banc); Ex parte Hargett , 819 S.W.2d 866, 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ex parte Villanueva , 252 S.W.3d 391, 397 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) ). Relying on Ex pa rte Aparicio , we rejected the State’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order. Id . at *2, 3. The State’s claims in this case are identical to those we addressed in Del Campo

- Chavez

. For the reasons described in that opinion, and in Ex parte Aparicio , we affirm the trial court’s order granting habeas relief. Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Charles L. Kelly, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Chem Rx Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Registrant");

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



---



5.     The
Registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Dated
November 14, 2007

| | /s/CHARLES L. KELLYCharles L. Kelly
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
----

**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

**OF      THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|   | (1) | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended                June 30,                2007 (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. |
|--|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12** 

**- 1371** 

SHAO YONG JIANG

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : September 7, 2012 Decided: September 12, 2012

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Gary J. Yerman, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laura Halliday Hickein , Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent i n this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Shao Yong Jiang , a native and citizen of the People’s

Republic of China

, petition s for review of an order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen

proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order

and conclude that the Board did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to reopen. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a), (c)

(2012). We therefore deny the petition for review for the

reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Shao Yong Jiang (B.I.A.

Feb. 23, 2012). 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.

PETITION DENIED
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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AgFeed Industries, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ending June 30, 2010 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Selina
Jin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.






Dated:  August
      9, 2010
              By:
              /s/
      Selina JinSelina
      JinChief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 6, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01256

- CV

SAM MUSSO , Appellant

V.

KATHERINE G. MOORE A /K/A KATHERINE G. MUSSO , Appellee

On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court Rockwall County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 13

- 739



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, a nd Schenck Opinion by Justice Lang

Before the Court is appellant’s January 28, 2015 m otion seeking to dismiss the appeal

and have costs taxed against the party incurring same. W e grant appellant’s motion to the extent

that we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

141256F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/

DOUGLAS S. LANG

JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SAM MUSSO, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 01256

- CV V.

KATHERINE G. MOORE A/K/A KATHERINE G. MUSSO, Appellee On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court, Rockwall County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 13

- 739. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Stoddart and Schenck, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, it is ORDERED that appellee KATHERINE G. MOORE A/K/A KATHERINE G. MUSSO recover her costs of this appeal from appellant SAM MUSSO.

Judgment entered this 6th day of February, 2015.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-8559
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CHARLES RUSSELL FORD, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Hiram H. Ward, Senior District Judge. (CR-90-89-G, CA-95-73-2) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: May 31, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Russell Ford, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Ford , Nos. CR-90-89-G; CA-95-73-2 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 18, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Pamela Formato, Respondent, v Lee Formato, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered on or about November 28, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion for interim relief to the extent, *inter alia,*of awarding plaintiff $300 per week in temporary maintenance, and $300 per week in child support, and granting plaintiff exclusive occupancy of the marital cooperative apartment, *pendente lite,*is unanimously modified, on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by directing a hearing by the IAS court, to be held within sixty days of the date of this order, as to whether plaintiff’s exclusive use and occupancy of the marital cooperative apartment should continue, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

As a general rule, *pendente lite*awards of exclusive use and occupancy of a marital residence should not be granted without a hearing, except upon persuasive evidence that such an award is necessary to protect the safety of persons and property. *(Delli Venneri v Delli Venneri,*120 AD2d 238, 240 [1986].) As plaintiff’s uncorroborated affidavit is challenged by defendant’s submissions, a hearing is necessary to determine credibility and to adequately evaluate the presence or absence of additional factors which would support such an award.

In light of the vast disparity in the parties’ incomes and financial resources, and in view of their previous lifestyle, the *275IAS court properly declined to compute the amount of child support pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240 (1-b) *(see,*Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [f]; *Rizzo v Rizzo,*163 AD2d 15 [1990]).

We find no evidence in the record to support defendant’s claims with respect to plaintiff’s purported additional income or enhanced capacity to earn a livelihood. Defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
March 5, 2015

	In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 5th day of March, 2015.

10-15-00057-CR	WILLIAM ARTHUR McINTOSH v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 40TH DISTRICT COURT OF ELLIS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO.  20086CR - DISMISSED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion that this Court lacks jurisdiction and that the appeal should be dismissed; it is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the appeal be, and hereby is, dismissed for want of jurisdiction.  It is further ordered that costs of appeal be, and hereby are, adjudged against Appellant and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1891 

To suspend temporarily the duty on standard grade ferroniobium. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. CASEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on standard grade 

ferroniobium. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STANDARD GRADE FERRONIOBIUM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Ferroniobium (provided for 

in subheading 7202.93.80) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1891 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6750

GARY FOREMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MEDICAL UNITS; RONALD ANGELONE; BOTETOURT

CORRECTION, Administration; HAYNESVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER; INDIAN CREEK CORRECTIONAL

CENTER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-97-34-A)

Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Foreman, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Foreman appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Foreman v. Medical Units, NO. CA-97-34-A (E.D. Va.

Apr. 30, 1998). 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.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

July 17, 2012

No. 11-3958

MARIO MENDOZA, Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(D.N.J. D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03540)

Present: AMBRO, VANASKIE and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.

1. Motion by Appellee to Publish Opinion dated June 28, 2012.

Respectfully,

Clerk/tyw/tmm

_________________________________ORDER________________________________

Appellee’s motion to publish opinion dated June 28, 2012, is hereby GRANTED.

The designation of the opinion as precedential does not alter the judgment previously 

entered or the original filing date. 

By the Court,

Circuit Judge

/s/ Aldisert

Dated: August 1, 2012

tyw/cc: Thomas R. Ashley, Esq.

Mark E. Coyne, Esq.

Norman Gross, Esq.