alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: City of Houston v. Nikolette Ledesma and Elsa Estrada Appellate case number: 01 - 22 - 00 377 - CV Trial court case number: 2017 - 84026 Trial court: 270th District Court of Harris County Appellant , City of Houston, has filed an “Unopposed Motion to Transfer Record from Prior Related Appeal.” In its motion, the City notes that there was a prior, related appeal in this Court, appellate case number 01 - 19 - 00034 - CV, “which resulted in the case being remanded back to the trial court.” The City requests that the clerk’s record from the prior appeal be transferred to this appeal. Appellant’s motion is granted . The Clerk of this Court is directed to copy the clerk’s record, filed on February 19, 2019, in appellate case number 01 - 19 - 00034 - CV, and file the copies in appellate case number 01 - 22 - 00337 - CV. It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature:

___ /s/ April Farris

_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court Date: __ September 22, 2022

____________________
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



August 16, 2004



In connection with the Large Scale Biology Corporation Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin J. Ryan, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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) | that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Large Scale Biology Corporation for the
fiscal period covered by the Report.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



By:

/s/ Kevin J. RyanKevin J. RyanPresident and Chief Executive OfficerLarge Scale Biology Corporation
#### Brian CRUZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17180.

D.C. No. CV-98-02322-LKK.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 30, 2002.

Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Brian Cruz appeals pro se the district court’s judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo judgments on the pleadings, *Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc.,*244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted judgment on the pleadings to the defendants because Cruz failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. *See Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 734, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Cruz’s contention that the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Booth*should not be applied retroactively lacks merit. *See Harper v. Va. Dep’t of Taxation,*509 U.S. 86, 96, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993) (“[A] rule of federal law, once announced and applied to the parties to the controversy, must be given full retroactive effect by all courts adjudicating federal law”).

Cruz’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS

I,  Brian  Bonar,  certify  that:

     1.  I  have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Dalrada Financial
Corporation  (the  "Company");

     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  circumstances under which such statements were
made,  not  misleading  with  respect  to the period covered by this report; and

     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 Company as of,
and  for,  the  periods  presented  in  this  report.

     4.  The  Company's  other  certifying  officers  and  I are responsible for
establishing  and  maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange  Act  Rules  13a-14  and  15d-14)  for  the  Company  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  Company,  including  its
consolidated  subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly  during  the  period in which this annual report is being prepared;

          b)  evaluated  the  effectiveness of the Company'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 Company's internal
control  over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent
fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or  is  reasonably  likely to
materially  affect,  the  Company's  internal  control over financial reporting;

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

          a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls  which could adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process,
summarize  and  report  financial  data  and  have  identified for the Company's
auditors  any  material  weaknesses  in  internal  controls;  and

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

Date:  October  13,  2004

/s/  Brian  Bonar

Brian  Bonar
Chief  Financial  Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID SBIR Phase II Clinical Trial Implementation Cooperative Agreement (U44 Clinical Trial Required).                    

*Date:*                         March 7, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20852 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Poonam Tewary, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G42, Rockville, MD 20852, (301) 761-7219,                         *tewaryp@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 8, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst,  Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-02989 Filed 2-13-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 653 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 309
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 653

                          [Report No. 104-207]

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                  coastwise trade for the vessel AURA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

               March 30 (legislative day, March 27), 1995

Mr. Kerry (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

                            January 26, 1996

              Reported by Mr. Pressler, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                  coastwise trade for the vessel AURA.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That notwithstanding 
sections 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States Code, and 
section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 883), as 
applicable on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with the 
appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade for the 
vessel AURA (United States official number 1027807).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 309

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 653

                          [Report No. 104-207]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to issue a certificate of 
 documentation with the appropriate endorsement for employment in the 
                  coastwise trade for the vessel AURA.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 26, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### The State, ex rel. Hout, *v.*Beightler, Dir. of Dept. of Highways.

(No. 27539

Decided May 24, 1939.)

*Messrs. Phillips & Falsgraf,*for relator.

*Mr. Thomas J.*Herbert, attorney general, and *Mr. John P.*Walsh, for respondent.

By the Court.

Relator was employed in a division of the state highway department in October, 19'31. He took an examination in January, 1934, for the position of laborer in charge, became sixth on an eligible list for such position, was assigned to perform the duties in April, 1934, was appointed from the eligible list and. continuously performed the duties of the position.

He received a written communication from the Director of Highways, advising that, effective March 28, 1939, for a period of thirty days, relator was sus*445pended from Ms position for discipline. No reasons were given relator for such suspension.

Relator filed in this court a petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to rescind the order of suspension and reinstate or restore relator to his office and employment. The cause was submitted on a demurrer filed by the respondent.

Counsel for relator concede that the issue involved in this proceeding is the same as that decided in *State, ex rel. Robinson,*v. *Allman, Dir. of Pub. Welfare,*134 Ohio St., 502, 17 N. E. (2d), 921, but state in their brief that the present proceeding is brought in the nature of a rehearing.

A majority of this court adheres to the pronouncement made in that case. The demurrer is therefore sustained and, relator not desiring to plead further, a writ of mandamus is denied.

*Writ denied.*

Day, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

. Weygandt, C. J., Zimmerman and Williams, JJ., dissent.
#### Ray Cal LOVELACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28625.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

*537T. R. Johnston, Big Lake, for appellant.

Lucius D. Bunton, Dist. Atty., Marfa, and Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

On April 9, 1956, upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was convicted of the felony offense of drunken driving. His punishment was assessed at two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

No sentence was passed upon that judgment, but imposition of sentence was expressly suspended and appellant was placed upon probation.

Shortly thereafter, the state moved to revoke the suspension of the imposition of sentence, alleging as grounds therefor the violation by appellant of some of the terms of probation.

After a hearing, the state’s motion to revoke was granted and the order suspending the imposition of sentence was set aside.

It is from that order that notice of appeal was given.

We note that, following the notice of appeal, appellant gave an.appeal bond. The term of court had not ended but was yet in session. Under such circumstance, a recognizance and not an appeal bond was proper.

It is apparent, therefore, that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal.

If sentence was imposed after the probation was set aside, it should be shown.

The appeal is dismissed.
#### William BALL, Superintendent of Whitley County Schools, et al., Appellants, v. Leila BUNCH, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 29, 1959.

Pleas Jones, Williamsburg, for appellants.

Glenn H. Stephens, Joe S. Feather, Garrett G. Teague, Jr., Williamsburg, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Combined motions for an appeal from (1) a judgment for $2,160 against'the Whitley County Board of Education in favor of Leila Bunch for salary as teacher for the school term 1956-1957 which she would have earned if she had taught but was wrongfully denied that right, and (2) from a judgment in a consolidated action setting aside an order of the County Board sustaining charges of incompetency of the appellee.

 The appellee held a limited teacher’s certificate which entitled her to be reemployed at the same salary unless the Board had given her written notice on or before March 31 of its intention not to reemploy her. KRS 161.750(2). The court found as a fact, upon ample evidence, that the teacher had not been so notified. The short delay in obtaining a renewal certificate from the Stale Superintendent of Public In*829struction did not, under the circumstances, as the court found, justify the Board in its action denying her the right to teach.

The court found as a matter of fact that the charge of incompetency to teach was not sustainable as a matter of law. CR 52.01. We do not regard the judgment as erroneous.

The motions are denied and the judgments stand.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 99.1

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Imaging Technologies Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Brian
Bonar,  Chief  Executive  and  Chief  Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as adopted pursuant to  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/  Brian  Bonar.
------------------

Brian  Bonar
Chief  Executive  and  Chief  Financial  Officer

Date:  November  18,  2002
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant


to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of Waytronx, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form
10-Q of the quarter ended March 31, 2010, I hereby certify solely for the
purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 Company.





Waytronx,
Inc.





By:
                /s/ Daniel N. Ford
                
                Dated
      this 7th
      day of May 2010.Daniel
      N. FordChief
      Financial Officer
stack 

### '9 **~·** 

### 5),A **42~ ~**  

### '1.\ **(365)** 

### 4ao l


## .. ' 4 

### :'1 \ . - - - '-

- - '

, COLORCODE 

# ~ R-3007A 

# ~ R-3007B 

## ~ R-3007C 

### ~ R-3007E 

## ~ the above areas. **~** ; 1

· · " JACKSONVILLE Sectional Aeronautical Chart **~** · '' ' • t '"'··



### . 

## ' .. **:.... ~**  

## • 98 ,...... 

### . C.A5T 

### M . OA 

### R-3007 

# c&o OA EXCLUO 

## A . s

. c 

# - **46~** 

### area ·- {41 E Meridian 460 (420) 

## (
#### Carroll Steven COOKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda ETLING; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17044.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 29, 2002.

Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Cooks’s motion for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Carroll Steven Cooks appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 claims against social workers employed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) for failure to state a claim. *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

Cooks is essentially attempting to reverse prior state juvenile court custody determinations, therefore the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. *See Worldwide Church of God v. McNair,*805 F.2d 888, 891-92 (9th Cir.1986). To the extent Cooks’s claims may interfere with any ongoing state judicial proceedings regarding the placement of Cooks’s son, *Younger*abstention applies. *See H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel,*203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (applying *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), to section 1983 challenge of child custody orders).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of New Millennium Media International,
Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB of the quarter ended March 31, 2004, I
hereby certify solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of
my knowledge:

(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
     Company.

New Millennium Media International, Inc.


By: /s/ Mark R. Chandler                Dated this 10th day of May 2004
    --------------------------
    Mark R. Chandler
    COO/CFO
#### Society for Savings in City of Cleveland, Appellee, *v.*Halliday et al., Appellants.

(No. 27414

Decided February 15, 1939.)

*Messrs. Squire, Sanders <& Dempsey, Mr. J. D. Arthur, Mr. E. G. Phillips*and *Mr. A. E. Powell,*for appellee.

*Mr. James Bravo,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.