alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: v. Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society v. John L. Graves, et al.

Appellate case number: 01-12-00443-CV

Trial court case number: 1163921

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas

-andAppellate case name: In re Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society, Inc., Relator

Appellate case number: 01-12-01066-CV

Trial court case number: 1163921

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas

It appears to the Court―after reviewing the motions to dismiss, the motion to show 

authority, the responses, and the replies―that the jurisdictional issues are intertwined with the 

merits in the above-referenced appeal such that the Court would be aided by full briefing. 

Accordingly, the Court (1) withdraws its order abating the briefing schedule, (2) orders the 

appellees’ brief filed within 30 days of the date of this order, and (3) carries the motions to 

dismiss and motion to show authority with the case. The Court will not look favorably upon 

motions to extend the deadline for filing the appellees’ brief. 

The parties have also filed a motion to consolidate the above-referenced appeal and

mandamus proceeding. That motion is denied. However, the Court will submit these two cases 

on the same day to the same panel. To that end, the Court requests a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus. The deadline for filing a response to the petition for writ of mandamus is 30 

days from the date of this order. Appellees’ may elect to combine their appellees’ brief and 

mandamus response in a single filing. If they do so, the Court will treat the combined briefing as 

having been filed in both the appeal and the mandamus proceeding. 
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown 

Acting individually 

Date: June 17, 2013
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer**

 

**Pursuant to Section 906**

 

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Section 1350)**

 

The undersigned, the ChiefExecutive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Emergency Medical ServicesCorporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), each hereby certifiesthat, to his knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a)       the Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,2010, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the“Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ William A. Sanger   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | William A. Sanger       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | November 4, 2010   |
|   |                    |
|   | /s/ Randel G. Owen      |
|   | Randel G. Owen          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | November 4, 2010   |

 

----
BASIN ELECTRIC

POWER COOPERATIVE

1717 EAST INTERSTATE AVENUE

BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA 56503·0564

PHONE. 701-223-0441

FAX: 701-557-5336

March 16,2009

Mr. David Finley, Administrator

Air Quality Division

WY Department of Environmental Quality

122 West 25th Street Herschler Building

Cheyenne, WY 82002

Dear Mr. Finley:

The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) notified Basin Electric in June 2006 that the

Laramie River Station (LRS) was a Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) applicable

source which required a BART engineering and modeling analysis for reducing visibility impacts

in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's Guidelines for BART Determinations

under the Regional Haze Rules (40 CFR Part 51). Visibility impacts for LRS were evaluated at

two Federal Class I areas - Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park.

A BART review was required to identify the best retrofit technology for the reduction of nitrogen

oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (S02), and particulate matter (PM) emissions from LRS Units 1, 2

and 3. Basin Electric contracted Black & Veatch to conduct a BART analysis to identify

technically feasible and cost-effective technologies following the BART Guidelines. A modeling

analysis was completed to evaluate the impact on visibility in the two identified Class I areas.

Reports and subsequent revisions of the BART analyses were submitted to your office on

February 28,2007; September 25,2007; February 14, 2008; and July 24,2008.

As a result of our meeting with your staff on March 2,2009, Basin Electric proposes a BART

limitation for NOx emissions on a 30-day rolling average of 1,348 Ib/hour for Unit 1; 1,348

Ib/hour for Unit 2; and 1,386 Ib/hour for Unit 3, which is calculated from emissions of 0.21

Ib/million Btu. In addition, we agree to an annual mass emissions limitation of 5,343 tons/year

for Unit 1; 5,343 tons/year for Unit 2; and 5,493 tons/year for Unit 3, which is calculated from

emissions of 0.19 Ib/million Btu,

We are proceeding with our plans to install over-fire air (OFA) on Unit 1 this spring, Unit 2 in the

spring of 2010, and on Unit 3 in the spring of 2011. In addition, we plan to upgrade to 10w-NOx

Burners (LNB) on Units 1, 2, and 3 in 2012, 2013, and 2014, respectively. While we anticipate

emissions of 0.18 Ib/mmBtu under ideal operating conditions, normal emissions are likely to be

higher.

After Basin Electric and DEQ agree on a plan, we will present it to the Missouri Basin Power

Project (MBPP) management and ask approval from the project owners.

A Touchstone Energy· Cooperative ~T.)I: - Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Employer
March 16, 2009

Page 2

If you have any questions, please contact me at 701-557-5654 or Lyle Witham at 701-557-5652.

Sincerely,

Robert L. Eriksen, P.E.

Sr. Environmental Compliance Administrator

Igmj

cc: Chad Schlichtemeier, DEQ

Mike Fluharty

David Cummings

Lyle Witham
# L_2006311EN.01001701.xml

| 10.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 311/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 311/17

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1655/2006

of 9 November 2006

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 958/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 November 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 November 2006, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 November 2006, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 shall be 25,414 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 November 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 November 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 175, 29.6.2006, p. 49.

2

---
Exhibit 31.3**Certification**I, Robert Radle, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 10-D required to befiled in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of the American Express CreditAccount Master Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);     2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing or other information required tobe provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Actperiodic reports;     4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report underItem 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, theservicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects;and     5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backedsecurities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicingcriteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit tothis report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliancedescribed in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.     In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me bythe following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York and Regulus Group LLC.Date: March 14, 2008     By: /s/ Robert Radle     Name: Robert Radle    Title:   President,               American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC
#### R. A. Mills, plaintiff in Error, v. Coleman & Ferguson, Defendants in Error.

(Supreme Court of Florida, *En Banc.,*

June 21, 1905.)

No appearance for the Plaintiff in Error.

*Geo. W. Dayton,*for Defendants in Error.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court Pasco County; Joseph B. Wall, Judge.

*622This action was brought by the defendants in error against the plaintiff in error. There was judgment for the plaintiffs and the defendant takes writ of error. Writ of error dismissed on motion of counsel for the defendants in error.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ramiro Torres, Also Known as Romiro Torres, Also Known as Romerio Torres, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered on June 14, 1988, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of six counts of robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 8 to 16 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. *(People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” *(People v Felman,*141 AD2d 889, 890, *lv denied*72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1848 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1848

 To modify and extend the suspension of duty on fludioxinil technical.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To modify and extend the suspension of duty on fludioxinil technical.

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

SECTION 1. FLUDIOXINIL TECHNICAL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.54 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to fludioxinil technical) is 
amended--
            (1) by striking ``1.6 percent'' and inserting ``1.0 
        percent''; and
            (2) by striking the date in the effective period column and 
        inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2007051EN.01003401.xml

| 20.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 51/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 51/34

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2006 of 15 December 2006 publishing, for 2007, the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 361 of 19 December 2006
  )

On page 12, footnote 6:

for:

‘... dry matter content of less than 78 % ...’,

read:

‘... dry matter content of at least 78 % ...’;

and on page 22, against the entry for CN code ex 0207 12 10:

for:

‘Plucked and gutted ...’,

read:

‘Plucked and drawn ...’.

---
EXHIBIT 23.1

 

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the: (i) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-87658) pertaining to the ValuJet Airlines, Inc. 1993 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the ValuJet Airlines, Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan, (ii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-91624) pertaining to the ValuJet Airlines, Inc. 1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-98568) pertaining to the Airways Corporation 1995 Stock Option Plan and 1995 Director Stock Option Plan, (iv) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-62863) of AirTran Holdings, Inc., (v) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-83048) of ValuJet Airlines, Inc., (vi) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82727) pertaining to the AirTran 1996 Stock Option Plan, and (vii) Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-41480) of AirTran Holdings, Inc., of our report dated January 28, 2001, except for Note 16 as to which the date is March 21, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of AirTran Holdings, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

 

 

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

Atlanta, Georgia
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2001 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2001

 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain high tenacity 
                          rayon filament yarn.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 28, 2009

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on certain high tenacity 
                          rayon filament yarn.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN HIGH TENACITY RAYON FILAMENT YARN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.07 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to high tenacity single yarn of 
viscose rayon with a decitex equal to or greater than 1,000) is amended 
by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
p120572.eng INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0572 Focus Ready Draft 10/15/2012 ENGINEER: Macek \ AH PV (kg/yr):

SUBMITTER:

MSDS: No Label: No TLV/PEL: No information provided.

SAT (concerns) (10/05/2012): Migration to groundwater: Rapid PBT rating: P1B1T2 Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation Eco: 2 Water (All releases to water with a CC = 11 ppb) OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2A NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS: Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER.

Page 1p120572.eng

EXPOSURE-BASED REVIEW: No
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT PMN: 12-0572

Number of Sites/ Location: Days/yr: 22

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same medium. Water or Air or Incineration or Landfill Output 2: 2.3E-1 kg/site-day over 22 days/yr from 1 site or 5.1E+0 kg/yr

Page 2p120572.eng

Water or Incineration or Landfill Output 2: 2.1E+0 kg/site-day over 5 days/yr from 1 site or 1.0E+1 kg/yr

RELEASE TOTAL 1.5E+1 kg/yr - all sites

Page 3
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of Razor Resources Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingOctober 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bing Wong, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 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 result of operations of the Company. 

 

/s/ Bing Wong                                    

Bing Wong, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: December 14, 2006
# L_2006247EN.01001901.xml

| 9.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/19

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1335/2006

of 8 September 2006

on the issue of import licences for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of 27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat (2),

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 936/97 provides in Articles 4 and 5 the conditions for applications and for the issue of import licences for meat referred to in Article 2(f).

| (2) | Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 fixes the amount of high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal meeting the definition laid down therein which may be imported on special terms for the period 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 at 11 500 t.

| (3) | It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

It should be recalled that licences issued pursuant to this Regulation will, throughout the period of validity, be open for use only in so far as provisions on health protection in force permit,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   All applications for import licences from 1 to 5 September 2006 for high-quality fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal as referred to in Article 2(f) of Regulation (EC) No 936/97 shall be granted in full.

2.   Applications for licences may be submitted, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 936/97, during the first five days of October 2006 for 3 310,168 t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 September 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2006.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1913/2005 (OJ L 307, 25.11.2005, p. 2).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 408/2006 (OJ L 71, 10.3.2006, p. 3).

2

---
<PAGE>



                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(c)

                            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 CheckFree Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David E. Mangum, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, 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 result of operations of the
Company.



                               /s/ David E. Mangum
                             ---------------------------------------------------
                             David E. Mangum, Executive Vice President and
                             Chief Financial Officer of CheckFree Corporation
                             September 25, 2002