alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 30, 2015

Mr. Arun Srinivasan

Akron Consulting LLC

431 North Center Street

Longview, TX 75601

Dear Mr. Srinivasan:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 61.133(a) and (b), 91.7(b), 91.119, 91.151(a), 91.401–91.417, and part 21 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and 

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Akron Consulting LLC into 

the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1729), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For 

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
#### STATE ex rel. Darrell JACKSON v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 87-KH-0351.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 19, 1987.

In re Jackson, Darrell; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 142338B.

Granted. The district court is ordered to act, if it has not already done so, on the post-conviction petition submitted in September, 1986, if it has been filed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2275 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2275

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydration systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain hydration systems.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN HYDRATION SYSTEMS WITH A CARGO STORAGE FROM 701 TO 
              1400 CUBIC INCHES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.01.00       Insulated           Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          hydration systems                                                  31/2011.......
                          with an outer
                          surface of
                          textile materials
                          whose interior
                          incorporates a
                          flexible plastic
                          container of a
                          kind for storing
                          and dispensing
                          potable beverages
                          through attached
                          flexible tubing
                          and which have a
                          cargo storage
                          capacity from 701
                          through 1400
                          cubic inches
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          4202.92.30)......

    (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>
```
#### Marcus SKIPPER and Sue Skipper v. Stephen Ladell FULGHAM.

No. 57031.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Aug. 12, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1987.

Thomas L. Kesler, Sams *&*Kesler, Columbus, for appellant.

G. Jyles Eaves, Eaves & Eaves, Louisville, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Choctaw County; Edward C. Prisock, Chancellor.

Before WALKER, C.J., and ANDERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PRATHER, J., not participating.
#### STATE ex rel. Larry HARDY v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 87-KH-1730.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 4, 1987.

In re Hardy, Larry; applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 262-291.

The relator represents that the district court has failed to act timely on an application he has filed for post-conviction relief. If relator’s representation is correct, the district court is ordered to consider and act on the application.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Arun Srinivasan

Akron Consulting LLC

431 North Center Street

Longview, TX 75601

Dear Mr. Srinivasan:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§§ 61.133(a) and (b), 91.7(b), 91.119, 91.151(a), 91.401

– 91.417, and part 21 of Title 14,

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your request and

what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your May 19 , 2015

, exemption request on behalf of Akron Consulting LLC into

the public docket (No. FAA− 20 15

− 1729 ), but we are unable to process your req uest any

further. Your petiti on does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For

us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Avia tion Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information describ ed

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

I f you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3
EXHIBIT 32.1


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 Amended Quarterly Report of Jammin Java Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending April 30, 2011 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Anh Tran, President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.











Dated: June 23, 2011
By:/s/ Anh TranAnh TranChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)and Principal Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer)
Order entered November 6, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01042
- CV TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, I NC., Appellant
V. ALESSANDRO UDELL, Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 03191 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s November 4, 2014 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file its brief by December 9, 2014 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Ross Technology, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-00920) on Form S-8 of Ross Technology, Inc. of our report dated June 23,
1997 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Ross Technology, Inc. and
subsidiary as of March 31, 1997 and April 1, 1996, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended March 31, 1997 and the related
schedule, which report appears in the March 31, 1997 annual report on Form 10-K
of Ross Technology, Inc.

Our report dated June 23, 1997, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company is dependent on its Parent, Fujitsu Limited, for its cash and
capital requirements.


                                          KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP

Austin, Texas
June 27, 1997
#### ENNIA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD., Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Albert W. AULD, M.D., Appellee/Cross Appellant.

Nos. 85-1804, 85-1947.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 29, 1987.

Ben J. Weaver and Henry T. Wihnyk of Weaver, Weaver, Lardin & Liroff, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant/cross appel-lee.

Stephen C. McAliley of Stephen C. McAli-ley *&*Associates, West Palm Beach, for appellee/cross appellant.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee, Albert Auld, the owner of a seventy-foot, ocean-going vessel had an agreed-value insurance policy on the boat issued by appellant, Ennia General. When the boat was grounded in the Bahamas and became a total loss, Auld filed a claim with Ennia General for the agreed-value amount of $100,000. Ennia General refused to pay that amount, claiming that Auld breached certain policy provisions by not adequately protecting the boat from further damage after the grounding.

Ennia submitted a proof of loss to Auld which listed $75,000 as the loss and amount claimed. In satisfaction of this offer of settlement Ennia General sent Auld a company draft in the amount of $75,000. The draft had the following release language on the back:

> By endorsing the draft the payees accept same in full settlement and release of all claims arising out of occurrence mentioned on the face hereof.

When Auld received the draft he changed the above language to read:

> By endorsing the draft the payees *do not*accept same in full settlement and release of all claims arising out of occurrence mentioned on the face hereof.

(Emphasis added).

He then endorsed the draft and cashed it.

Subsequently, Auld brought suit against Ennia General for the remaining $25,000. The jury returned a verdict in his favor and awarded him the $25,000.

*63Ennia General contends on appeal that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict on its defense of accord and satisfaction. We agree that the trial court so erred and hereby reverse the final judgment. We do so based upon our decision in *Eder v. Yvette B. Gervey Interiors, Inc.,*407 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), wherein we held that:

> [T]he payee of a check (the creditor) which is tendered in full and final performance of a disputed obligation may not, by noting on the check a reservation of rights, cash the check and thereafter successfully rely on that reservation of rights to defeat an express, written condition inscribed on the check by the debt- or that acceptance constitutes payment in full.

*Accord Yelen v. Cindy’s, Inc.,*386 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). We find no reason to factually distinguish this matter from *Eder*and *Yelen*simply because Ennia General used a company draft rather than a check when it issued the $75,000 settlement amount to Auld.

We reverse and remand the cause for entry of judgment for Appellant Ennia General.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., and POLEN, MARK E., Associate Judge, concur.
Order filed July 28, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-15-00169-CV

__________

IN RE THE STATE OF TEXAS EX REL. MICHAEL MUNK

Original Mandamus Proceeding

 O R D E R

This is an original mandamus proceeding filed by Relator, the State of Texas, 

acting by and through the District Attorney for the 106th Judicial District, Michael 

Munk. Relator seeks an emergency temporary stay requesting a stay of the 

enforcement of an order, issued on July 22, 2015, to produce discovery by 5:00 p.m. 

on July 30, 2015. The trial court’s order to produce discovery bears the style “State 

of Texas v. Dimas Gonzalez,” and was entered by the trial judge of the 106th District 

Court of Dawson County, Texas. However, the order to produce discovery does not 

bear a trial court cause number. It appears to have been filed in a criminal proceeding 

that has not yet been filed in the trial court.
2

Pursuant to the authority of TEX.R. APP. P. 52.10(b), Relator’s motion seeking 

temporary relief is granted. The enforcement of the order to produce discovery is 

stayed for all purposes pending further order of this court.

Furthermore, upon reviewing State’s application for emergency temporary 

stay and for writs of mandamus and prohibition, the Court requests Real Party in 

Interest Dimas Gonzalez to file a response. This response is due on or before 

August 10, 2015. If Respondent, Judge Carter T. Schildknecht, desires to file a 

response, it is also due on or before August 10, 2015.

 

PER CURIAM

July 28, 2015

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
<PAGE>   1


Allied Capital Mortgage Lending Corporation
Exhibt 11 Computation of Earnings Per Common Share
For the period August 10, 1995 (date of incorporation) through December 31, 1995





<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        For the period August 10,   
                                                       1995 (date of incorporation)
                                                        through December 31, 1995   
                                                       ----------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>                 
Earnings Per Common Share:

    Net Increase in Net Assets Resulting
      from Operations                                             $ 0
                                                                  ===
                                                                     
    Weighted average number of shares and                            
      share equivalents outstanding                                70
                                                                  ===
                                                                     
                                                                     
    Earnings per Share                                            $ 0
                                                                  ===
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2





WRITTEN STATEMENT


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with Quarterly Report of China Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Alex Gong , Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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: April 19, 2011
By:
/s/  Alex GongName:
Alex GongTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION**


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
      Jon
      Suk, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
      of Mystica Candle Corp. for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2007 fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
      fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results
      of
      operations of Mystica Candle Corp.








Date:
                February 14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Jon SukName:
            Jon
                SukTitle:
            Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer
CERTIFICATIONS
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


UNDER
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the filing by Lixte Biotechnology Holdings, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2009 (the “Quarterly Report”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, I, John S. Kovach, 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 results of operations of the
Registrant.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Registrant and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:  November
      12, 2009
            By:
            /s/ JOHN S. KOVACHJohn
      S. KovachChief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer and Principal Financial
  Officer)
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-15,936-02

EX PARTE JOSE ANGEL JASSO JR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. F-0972432-P IN THE 203 DISTRICT COURT RD

FROM DALLAS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of the offense of

aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Fifth Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Jasso v. State, No. 05-13-00594-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14,

2014)(not designated for publication).

The record indicates that the trial court has not completed its fact-finding in this cause. We

remand this application to the 203 District Court of Dallas County to allow the trial judge to rd

complete an evidentiary investigation and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law.
This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: September 23, 2015

Do not publish
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2326 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2326

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain synthetic 
                            filament yarns.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kirk) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain synthetic 
                            filament yarns.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN SYNTHETIC FILAMENT YARNS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.90 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to certain synthetic filament 
yarns) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect 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>
```