alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00068-CR

KELLY RODDY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from Criminal District 

Court No. 2

of Tarrant County (1496173D)

July 18, 2019

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### Malissa Robinson *et al.,*Appellants, v. John Capehart *et al.,*Appellees.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson county; Charles B. Parkhill, Judge.

*J. M. Calhoun,*for Appellants.

*D. L. McKinnon,*for Appellees.

*416The bill in this cause was filed by the appellees against the appellants. There was decree for the complainants and the defendants appeal. Dismissed on motion of counsel for the appellees.
<PAGE>
                                                       EXHIBIT 11

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          YANKEE ENERGY SYSTEM, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                 Earnings Per Share Computation

                    For the Years Ended September 30
                    --------------------------------
<S>                 <C>            <C>            <C>
                    1997           1996           1995       
                    ----           ----           ----

                    (Thousands of Dollars, Except Share Data)


Net Income          $16,957        $21,919        $12,358 
                    -------        -------        -------


Average Common
Shares
Outstanding         10,451,165     10,435,196     10,332,447     
                    ----------     ----------     ----------


Earnings Per
Share               $1.62(b)       $2.10(b)       $1.20(b)       
                    --------       --------       -----------

</TABLE>

     (a)  Exclusive of an $0.08 per share charge resulting from
an early redemption premium on the Company's preferred stock.

     (b)  Earnings per share information is the same on both a
primary and fully diluted basis as Yankee Energy System, Inc. has
a simple capital structure.
**Exhibit
      31.1**


**RULE
      13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION**





I,
      John
      C. Roman, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Naugatuck Valley Financial
      Corporation;





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)) 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 period in which this 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 report based on such evaluation; and





c)
      disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
      financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
      quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
      affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
      and





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 registrant's board of directors
      (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
      all
      significant deficiencies and material weakness in the design or operation of
      internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
      adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
      report financial information; and





b)
      any
      fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
      who
      have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
      reporting.





Date:
      May
      8, 2006








By: /s/
      John C. Roman


President and Chief Executive Officer






18
[No. 36006-0-I.

Division One.

July 8, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. E.C., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-8-00594-6, Michael Spearman, J., entered January 18, 1995. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### Frank SMATHERS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. SUN BANKS, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 87-1471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 21, 1988.

Lapidus & Frankel and Richard Lapidus, Miami, for appellants.

Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson and Stanley H. Wakshlag, Miami, Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault & Pillans and C. Harris Dittmar and Julie Hills Tucker, Jacksonville, for appellees.

Before NESBITT, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *Union Oil of California v. Watson,*468 So.2d 349 (Fla. 3d DCA), *review denied,*479 So.2d 119 (Fla.1985); *Warriner v. Burdines, Inc.,*93 So.2d 108 (Fla.1957); *Della-Donna v. Nova University, Inc.,*512 So.2d 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); *Yoder v. Adriatico,*459 So.2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); *McMurray v. U-Haul Co.,*425 So.2d 1208 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); *South Florida Beverage Corp. v. Figueredo,*409 So.2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), *re**1057*view denied,*417 So.2d 329 (Fla.1982), *cert. denied,*459 U.S. 881, 103 S.Ct. 178, 74 L.Ed.2d 146 (1982); *Blue v. Weinstein,*381 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); *Baker & Co., Florida v. Goding,*317 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), *cert. denied,*328 So.2d 840 (Fla.1976); *Bal Harbour Shops, Inc. v. Greenleaf & Crosby Co.,*274 So.2d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); *Wilcox v. Atkins,*213 So.2d 879 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968).
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7750]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration, 
Norac Inc.

    By Notice dated December 20, 2011, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 29, 2011, 76 FR 81979, Norac Inc., 405 S. Motor 
Avenue, Azusa, California 91702-3232, made application by renewal to 
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk 
manufacturer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010)...........  I
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I
Methamphetamine (1105).....................  II
Pentobarbital (2270).......................  II
Nabilone (7379)............................  II
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Gamma Hydroxybutyric Acid (2010), 
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370), and Methamphetamine (1105) only, the 
company manufactures these controlled substances in bulk solely for 
domestic distribution within the United States to customers engaged in 
dosage-form manufacturing.
    With regard to Nabilone (7379) only, the company presently 
manufactures a small amount of this controlled substance in bulk solely 
to conduct manufacturing internal process development. It is the 
company's intention once the manufacturing process is refined to the 
point that its Nabilone bulk product is available for commercial use, 
the company will export the controlled substance in bulk solely to 
customers engaged in dosage-form manufacturing outside the United 
States. The company is aware of the requirement to obtain a DEA 
registration as an exporter to conduct this activity.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Norac, Inc. to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled 
substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Norac, Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is 
consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included 
inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, 
verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and 
a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant 
to 21 USC Sec.  823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the 
above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of 
the basic classes of controlled substances listed.

    Dated: March 23, 2012.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-7750 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Exhibit
32.1 / 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 of Design Source, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Peter Reichard, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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
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.





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.





Dated:  July
      24, 2009
              /s/ Peter ReichardPeter
      Reichard, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
                Financial
      Officer
### Revised RTR package Ken Hustvedt to: Higgins, Cortney, nbeck 09/11/2010 01:20 AM

Cc: Ann Johnson, Dave Guinnup, Dave Salman, Elaine Manning, Fred Talcott, George Woodall, Jan Tierney, Mark Morris, Mary Kissell, Paula Hirtz, Phil Mulrine, Randy Mcdonald, Rick Vetter, Sarah Mazur, Stan Durkee, Steve Shedd, Ted Palma, Tim Benner, Wendy Blake, Fred Talcott, Peter Tsirigotis 

### here is the revised package and a compare v the original one we sent. It is not based on the revised Chrome section we sent; the changes reflect our new version that we sent earlier. Also, there have been extensive changes to the SSM provisions Talk to you Monday KC hustvedt

RTR compare

9 10 10.docx RTR Bins12 OMB ProPkg10Sep10.doc
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6870** 

WILLIAM A. BREWER , Petition er - Appellant ,
v. B. WRIGHT, Senior Warden , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. T. S. Ellis , III , Senior District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00538

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : October 29, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. William A. Brewer, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: William A. Brewer seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appeala bility will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When 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
g rounds, 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 Brewer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brewer’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and le gal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS

I, Barrie M. Damson, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of
Baseline Oil & Gas Corp., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2006, (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2) information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Baseline
Oil & Gas Corp.



Dated: October 18, 2006


                                               /s/ Barrie M. Damson
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               Barrie M. Damson
                                               Chairman, Chief Executive Officer

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.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

MAR 0 2 2015 

Mr. Brian Richardet 

Cessna Aircraft Company 

One Cessna Boulevard 

PO Box 7704 

Wichita, Kansas 67277-7704 

Dear Mr. Richardet: 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

1601 Lind Avenue, S.W. 

Renton, Washington 98057-3356 

We have received your petition letter dated February 16, 2015, requesting partial relief from 

§ 25.1447(c)(l) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations. This exemption, if granted, would 

allow the installation of a modified passenger oxygen system on Cessna Model 750 

airplanes which, when operating into or out of an airfield with a pressure altitude greater 

than 14,000 ft. (but less than 15,000 ft.), would ensure the automatic presentation of oxygen 

dispensing units to occupants before the cabin pressure altitude exceeds 16,000 ft., rather 

than 15,000 ft., as required by§ 25.1447(c)(l). 

This request was submitted to the Department of Transportation's Federal Docket 

Management System (at Regulations.gov) on February 23,2015, and has been assigned 

Docket No. FAA-2015-0449. We are in the process of reviewing your request. We will 

contact you if we need additional information. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please 

contact Mr. Robert Hettman at (425) 227-2683, or by e-mail at Robert.Hettman@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

(o~~ ~V\ Deana M. Stedman 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service 

COPY 

eF OHIGINAl
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 289 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 289

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2001

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make technical 
           corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 1.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 1) to close the achievement 
gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is 
left behind, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall, with 
respect to the 

title IX that is contained within quotation marks and that immediately 
precedes title X of the bill, make the following corrections:
            (1) Insert before such title IX the following:

                      TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 901. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

    Title IX (20 U.S.C. 7801 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

            (2) Insert at the end of such title IX closed quotation 
        marks and a period.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 13, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### King, Appellant, *v.*Kerwin, Appellee.

(No. 31330

Decided May 19, 1948.)

*499
      *Mr. Merritt E. Schlafman,*for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

By the Court.

The Court of Common Pleas held that, since the rejected ballots each bore seven marks, “all the marks would have to be counted,” too many persons were voted for for council, “the board of elections would not know for whom to count the votes” and the board “would have to throw out such ballots as mutilated”; and that the voter should have exchanged his ballot for another if he did not intend to vote for the candidate opposite whose name the voter made a mark.

The first paragraph of Section 4785-131, General Code (116 Ohio Laws, 69), then provided in part: “If ,a voter soils or defaces a ballot so that it cannot be used, he may successively obtain others, one at a time, not exceeding in all three, upon returning each ballot so soiled or defaced.”

An examination of the disputed ballots discloses that none was soiled or defaced so as to have required the elector to obtain another.

That section, in paragraph numbered nine, provided *500further: “No ballot shall be rejected for any technical error which does not make it impossible to determine the voter’s choice.”

The voters’ choices in the present case are manifest and their ballots were rejected for a technical error, contrary to the provisions of paragraph nine, *supra.*See *Whitacre*v. *Waggoner,*133 Ohio St., 409, 413, 14 N. E. (2d), 22.

The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and final judgment is entered for the appellant.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 248 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 248

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Expressing the sense of the Congress that public schools may display 
  the words ``God Bless America'' as an expression of support for the 
                                Nation.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 248

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of the Congress that public schools may display 
the words ``God Bless America'' as an expression of support for the 
Nation.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 16, 2001.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### H. H. Boyer, Plaintiff in Error, v. E. F. Skinner, Defendant in Error.

Division B.

Writ of Error to Circuit Court, Escambia county; Challes B. Parkhill, Judge.-

*Avery é Avery,*for Plaintiff in Error.

*B. P. Reese,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendant in error. There was judgment for the defendant and the plaintiff takes writ of error. The judgment is affirmed. ■ •

Decision
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 448 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.448
                                         Agreed to July 26, 2002        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
          the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

                          Concurrent Resolution

Whereas on September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent people were killed 
  and injured in combined terrorist attacks involving four hijacked 
  airliners, the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon;

Whereas in the aftermath of the attacks, thousands more were left 
  grieving for beloved family and friends, livelihoods were 
  compromised, and businesses and property were damaged and lost;

Whereas the greatest loss of life, personal injury, and physical 
  destruction occurred in and was sustained by the City of New York;

Whereas Government and the American people responded decisively, 
  through the bravery, sacrifice and toil of the fire and rescue 
  workers, law enforcement, building trades, caregivers, Armed Forces, 
  and millions more who through their many expressions of care and 
  compassion brought forth comfort, hope, and the promise of recovery;

Whereas the City of New York attended to the aftermath of the 
  destruction of the World Trade Center with profound respect for the 
  victims and compassion to the survivors; and

Whereas the City of New York has invited the Congress to meet at the 
  site of the original Federal Hall, where the First Congress of the 
  United States convened on March 4, 1789: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in remembrance of the victims and the heroes of September 11, 
2001, and in recognition of the courage and spirit of the City of New 
York, the Congress shall conduct a special meeting in Federal Hall in 
New York, New York, on September 6, 2002.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```