alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

 

I, Javier O. Lamoso, President of ClearComm, L.P., certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this annual report of ClearComm, L.P.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; and

 

4.               The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)                            Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared; and

(b)                           Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation.

 
| Date:  April 14, 2004 |                 |
|----------------------------|----------------------|
|                       | /s/ Javier O. Lamoso |   |
|                       | Javier O. Lamoso     |
|                       | President            |

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NOS. WR-35,575-26 AND WR-35,575-27

EX PARTE JAMES WESLEY MCCARTNEY, Applicant

ON APPLICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NOS. CR92-0532-A-W-9 AND CR92-0533-A-W-9

IN THE 51ST DISTRICT COURT FROM TOM GREEN 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 these applications for writs of habeas corpus. Ex

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

murder and aggravated kidnapping and sentenced to imprisonment.

In his present applications, Applicant raises several grounds. The applications, however,

present a more serious question. This Court’s records reflect that Applicant has filed many prior

habeas applications pertaining to these convictions. It is obvious from the record that Applicant

continues to raise issues that have been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should
2

have been presented in previous applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily

abused. Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S. 1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). 

Because of his repetitive claims, we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under

Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and abandoned by his abuse of the writ. These applications are

dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept or file the

instant applications for writs of habeas corpus, or any future application pertaining to these

convictions unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that any claims presented have

not been raised previously and that they could not have been presented in a previous application for

a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).

Copies of this order shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: April 3, 2019

Do not publish
1 

### Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Miller, Jeff <jmiller@airlines.org>

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 2:15 PM

To: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Cc: Thompson, Mary (FAA); Rowe, Salli M (FAA); Roberts, Brandon (FAA); Ferritto, Michelle

(FAA); Mullen, Doug; Ghezai, Sophia

Subject: RE: Petition for Exemption: Airlin es for America (Docket No. FAA-2002-12455)

Ms. Daniels,

Thanks for the information and the cl arification over the telephone.

In order to expedite the issuance of the exemption (5487K ), we withdraw the request for the amendment that was

discussed in the initial exemption 5487K extension request (dated Feb 4, 2014).

We will resubmit the amendment request after the extension has been issued.

Since your email below states that we can make this re quest through a simple email reply, we will not submit any

documentation to the docket (FAA-2002-12455) at this time.

Thanks

Jeff Miller



### Jeffrey A. Miller

Managing Director, Flight Operations

Airlines for America

We Connect the World

Office: 202.626.4285

Mobile: 407-758-1235

airlines.org | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | LinkedIn

From: Nia.Daniels@faa.gov [ mailto:Nia.Daniels@faa.gov ]

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 1:21 PM

To: Miller, Jeff

Cc: Mary.Thompson@faa.gov ; salli.m.rowe@faa.gov ; Brandon.Roberts@faa.gov ; Michelle.Ferritto@faa.gov

Subject: Petition for Exemption: Airlines for America (Docket No. FAA-2002-12455)

Mr. Miller,

On March 2, 2016, your petition for an exemption posted to the docket. We have received your petition request on

behalf of Airlines for America, which asks for an extension to your current exemption 5487K and an amendment. The

amendment you request would allow you to issue a temporary confirmation document in either paper or electronic

form to crewmembers who do not have their airmen or medical certificate in their personal possession.

As you know, your current extension expires July 31, 2016. However, in order to expedite the issuance of your extension,

we respectfully ask that you withdraw your request for the amendment and resubmit it after the extension has been

issued. Because the amendment would be precedent setting and would likely result in new conditions and limitations,

we need additional time to make a determination and complete legal review. We do not want the existing exemption to

lapse in the meantime.

You can submit the clarification by going to your docket at www.regulations.gov (Docket No. FAA

‐ 2002

‐ 12455) or by

replying to this email.

If you have any questions or concerns, my contact information is below.2 Thank you,

Nia Daniels, ARM

‐ 108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267

‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267

‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
EXHIBIT 23.1


Independent Auditor's Consent



The Board of Directors
Grand Premier Financial, Inc.


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement 
Nos. 333-0327, 333-11635, 333-11645 and 333-11663 on Form S-8 of Grand Premier 
Financial, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 1997, relating to the 
consolidated balance sheet of Grand Premier Financial, Inc. and subsidiaries as 
of December 31, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, 
changes in stockholders equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, which 
report is incorporated by reference in the December 31, 1996 annual report on
Form 10-K of Grand Premier Financial, Inc.



KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
Chicago, Illinois

March 24, 1997
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 19

- 00022

- CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

Trial Court No. 048

- 286132

- 16

Before Bas sel, Kerr, and Pittman, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N RE 

### H ARRIET 

### N ICHOLSON 

### , Relator2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and motion

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly,

relator’s peti tion for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 7 , 2019
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 500

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that certain deductions of school bus drivers shall be allowable in computing adjusted

gross income.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 6, 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that certain deductions of school bus drivers shall be

allowable in computing adjusted gross income.

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

3 SECTION 1. DEDUCTIONS OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS AL4 LOWABLE IN COMPUTING ADJUSTED GROSS

5 INCOME.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 62(a) of

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain

8 trade and business deductions of employees) is amended

9 by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
2

•S 500 IS

1 ‘‘(C) CERTAIN EXPENSES OF SCHOOL BUS

2 DRIVERS.—The deductions allowed by part VI

3 (section 161 and following) which consist of ex4 penses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in con5 nection with the performance by the taxpayer of

6 services as an employee while driving a school

7 bus (as defined in section 4221(d)(7)(C)).’’

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

9 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

10 December 31, 1995.

Æ
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21


               SUBSIDIARIES OF EXECUTONE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                     JURISDICTION OF      %
NAME                                 INCORPORATION      OWNERSHIP        BUSINESS
<S>                                  <C>                <C>          <C>
Unistar Gaming Corporation              Delaware          100%          Holding Company

UniStar Entertainment, Inc.             Idaho             100%        Lottery Management

</TABLE>

All listed subsidiaries do business only under their corporate names listed
above. Certain inactive and immaterial subsidiaries, which if considered in the
aggregate as a single subsidiary would not constitute a "significant subsidiary"
as defined in Rule 1-02(w) of the Commission, as of December 31, 1997, are not
listed.


<PAGE>
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000810

08-NOV-2018

07:51 AM
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00599-CV

Agua Special Utility District

v.

Leopoldo Ramirez and Sylvia Ann Ramirez

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CCD-0104-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 19, 2015
**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 Quarterly Report of Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedJune 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert O. Carr, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

1. The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

2. The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Thiscertification is being provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever. 

Date: August 6, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 510 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 510

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 1995

  Referred to the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To extend the authorization for certain programs under the Native 
         American Programs Act of 1974, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE NATIVE 
              AMERICAN PROGRAMS ACT OF 1974.

    (a) Section 816.--Section 816 of the Native American Programs Act 
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 2992d) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``for fiscal years 1992, 
        1993, 1994, and 1995.'' and inserting ``for each of fiscal 
        years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.'';
            (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``for each of the fiscal 
        years 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996,'' and inserting ``for 
        each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999,''; and
            (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``$2,000,000 for fiscal 
        year 1993 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
        1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997.'' and inserting ``such sums as may 
        be necessary for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 
        1999.''.
    (b) Section 803A(f)(1).--Section 803A(f)(1) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
2991b-1(f)(1)) is amended by striking ``for each of the fiscal years 
1992, 1993, and 1994, $1,000,000'' and inserting ``such sums as may be 
necessary for each of fiscal years 1996 through 1999,''.
            Passed the Senate May 11 (legislative day, May 1), 1995.

            Attest:

                                               SHEILA P. BURKE,

                                                             Secretary.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131321 & (21) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131321 

 COA: 265352 

Berrien CC: 74-003151-FH 

JESSIE SOLIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The 

motion to remand is DENIED. 

s1218 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2006 

 Clerk
Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Scott Kane [kanesco@gmail.com] 

Monday, September 24, 2012 9:45 PM 

Grafe, Jerome (DEP) 

Red / Blue Line connection 

Dear Mr. Grafe, 

I know i t is after the officia l deadline for testimony but I hope you wil l allow one more. I 

live in East Boston and am a daily commuter on the blue line. In a past position I worked at 

Alewife although these days I am lucky enough to not have to use the Red line much. Like I 

would suppose virtually everyone in East Boston, Revere, and the North shore I am in favor of 

the connection. There are any number of reasons I could site for this but there are two main 

ones I'l l highlight. 

One is that I think an enormous number of improvements have been done to Eastie in the past 

few years such as Bremen street park, the big dig tunnels, Airport, Maverick, and now Orient 

heights stations, the new library, the extended East Boston greenway bike path, the central 

sq redesign, Piers park, and new housing developments al l over the neighborhood. I t is a very 

good value for the money but stil l remains undervalued. I think a big part of that is i t is 

cut off from the vibrancy of the student populations in Cambridge. Psychologically the line 

just seems disconnected and distant. I often hear the joke that i t isn't even really part of 

the system. It s because i t doesn't cross arguably the most important line on the T. The 

overheated job market in Cambridge needs cheaper housing and Eastie could use the vibrancy of 

Cambridge. When you connect those two places I think everyone is coming out a winner. 

The second reason is just the reality of rush hour. Having people transfer at Park st / 

Downtown crossing to get off the Blue line is adding enormous pressure to that one stop. I 

don't know how often you pack in to those trains but I do i t every day and it s horrible. I 

see al l the people every day making that transfer and I'm frustrated right along with them. 

I t isn't just Eastie that's being helped out here- it s the entire downtown system. 

I am a bi t of a history buff and was interested in looking up the history of Scollay sq and 

West end some years ago. In the book I read they showed drawings of the original plan for the 

area which did have the red and blue connected. I guess in the 50s when this was happening i t 

wasn't a priorit y though. I understand the technical side of this. 

I ts not as though Charles street doesn't have sewer, electrical, and every other type of line 

already running underneath it . I understand this would add the expense but the reality is 

Government center is a mess and wil l have to be dealt with as well. It s not an ADA complaint 

station and wil l eventually have to be rebuilt. Why not work this redesign of the blue line 

in with that needed redesign project? I think this is a much needed part of the system and 

since the need isn't every going to go away i t should be dealt with. What better time than 

the present? 

Thank you, 

Scott Kane 

l
Victoria Mari



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

Thursday, April 30, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00239

- CR

The STATE of Texas, Appellant

v.

Vi ctoria Mari VELASQUEZ

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 6, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 478295 Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an appeal by the State of the trial court’s order granting a motion to suppress. The State has filed a motion requesting this court to abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of la w in accordance with State v. Cullen

, 195 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The motion is GRANTED. This appeal is abated, and the cause is remanded to the trial court. The trial court is instructed to cause a supplemental

clerk’s record to be filed in this court containing the trial court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than thirty days from the date of this order. The stay imposed by this court on April 23, 2015

, pursuant to article 44.01( e ) of the Texas Code of Criminal Pro cedure, is lifted to the extent necessary to allow the trial court to comply with this order.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 30th day of April, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1036

HUGH TITO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ASHTON B. CARTER, The Honorable, Secretary, Department of 

Defense (Defense Logistics Agency),

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:14-cv-00453-REP)

Submitted: August 11, 2016 Decided: August 16, 2016

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hugh Tito, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugh Tito appeals the district court’s order granting 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing his civil 

action alleging age discrimination in a promotion decision and in 

setting his compensation while he held a temporary position. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court.* Tito v. Hagel, No. 3:14-cv-00453-REP (E.D. Va. Nov. 17, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * Although Defendant may not have complied with Local Rule 

7(E), district courts in the Eastern District of Virginia do not 

view a violation of that rule as fatal to a motion for summary 

judgment. See Hunt v. Calhoun Cnty. Bank, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 

720, 731 (E.D. Va. 2014) (“Failure to meet and confer does not 

automatically result in denial of a motion. Rather, sanctions for 

failure to meet and confer lie within a district court’s discretion 

and its inherent power to control its docket.” (citations 

omitted)).
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 Annual Report of Netopia,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Alan B. Lefkof, as President and Chief Executive 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:



| | i. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | ii. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



By:

/s/ Alan B. LefkofAlan B. Lefkof President and Chief Executive
Officer Date: December 14, 2006