alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT      3.2**

**(A        Delaware corporation)**

----

|         |                                                               |                                                               |
|--------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|         |                                                               |
|    |                                                          |  Executed                this 9th day of January, 2006.  |
|         | By:                                                      | /s/ Allyson                Vanderford                         |
|         | Allyson Vanderford                                                 |
|         | Title :                Chief                Financial Officer |

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            |   |   |                      |                                                 |
|---------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |   |   |                      |
| Date:            April 13, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/            Jay Rifkin |
|                            |   |   |                      | Jay RifkinPrincipal Financial                Officer |
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 14, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00621

- CV

MALLORY YORK , Appellant V. MAKEATHA COOPER , Appellee

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF13

- 01004



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice Lang The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated June 23, 2014, we i nformed
appellant that the District Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed
because appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed
appellant to file written verification that appellan t had paid or made arrangements to pay for the
clerk’s record or that appellant had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We
cautioned that if appellant did not filed the required documentation within ten days of the date of

the letter, we might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution without further notice. To date,
appellant has not provided the required documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court
regarding the status of the clerk’s record or this appeal.– 2

– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3( b) ;
42.3(b), (c).

140621F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MALLORY YORK, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00621

- CV V.

MAKEATHA COOPER, Appellee On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF13

- 01004. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Myers and Brown participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee MAKEATHA COOPER recover her costs of this appeal, if any, from appellant MALLORY YORK.

Judgment entered this 14th day of July, 2014.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6889
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WAYNE ERIC MITCHELL, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-94-96, CA-97-156) Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 9, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wayne Eric Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find noreversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Mitchell , Nos. CR-94-96; CA-97-156 (M.D.N.C. May 23, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Opinion issued July 12, 2012.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The

First District of Texas

NO. 01-11-00996-CV

____________

TAMIEKA SINGH, Appellant

V.

HELDA H. SHAGHAGHI, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1002508

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 16, 2011, appellant Tamieka Singh filed an affidavit of 

indigence with the trial court clerk. Although appellant has not filed a notice of 
2

appeal, the trial court clerk assigned this appeal to this Court, based upon the 

affidavit of indigence. 

The filing of a notice of appeal by any party invokes the appellate court’s 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). A court of appeals has jurisdiction over 

any appeal where the appellant files an instrument that was filed in a bona fide 

attempt to invoke appellate court jurisdiction. Linwood v. NCNB Tex., 885 S.W.2d 

102, 103 (Tex. 1994); Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Southern Parts Imports, 

Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Tex. 1991). If the appellant timely files a document in a 

bona fide attempt to invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction, the court of appeals, 

on appellant’s motion, must allow the appellant an opportunity to perfect the appeal 

by amending or refiling. See Grand Praire Indep. Sch. Dist., 813 S.W.2d at 500.

Appellant has not filed a notice of appeal, but has filed an affidavit of 

indigence. An affidavit of indigence is not an instrument that is filed to invoke the 

appellate court’s jurisdiction. In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d 755, 757 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th] 2011, no pet.). The affidavit concerns the separate question of 

whether appellant must pay appellate costs in advance. Id.; see In re J.W., 52 

S.W.3d 730, 733 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam). Thus, the filing of an affidavit of 

indigence does not constitute a bona fide attempt to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. 

In re R.B.M., 338 S.W.3d at 757.
3

On March 29, 2012, we notified appellant that her appeal was subject to 

dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by April 11, 2012, she filed a response 

showing grounds for continuing the appeal. Appellant has not filed a response. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Keyes.
#### W. L. CANTRELL and Samuel Castleberry, Appellants, v. CITY OF CARUTHERSVILLE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent.

No. 45147.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 1.

Feb. 13, 1956.

Motion to Modify Judgment Denied March 12, 1956.

Von Mayes and Fred L. Henley, Caruth-ersville, for appellants.

Ward & Reeves, Caruthersville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the trial court rendered jüdgment abating plaintiffs’ claim and dismissing their petition. The judgment was based on the ground of *res judicata.*The judgment is affirmed. See Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 425; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 363 Mo. 938, 255 S.W.2d 785; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, Mo.Sup., 267 S.W.2d 646; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, D.C.E.D. Mo., 128 F.Supp. 637; Cantrell v. City of Caruthersville, 8 Cir., 222 F.2d 428.
<PAGE>
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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: March 25, 2005


/s/ Brian T. Beckwith
----------------------------------------
Brian T. Beckwith,
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-402-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills Shoshone Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: 4(d) Rate Filing: Black Hills Shoshone 2024 LAUF 
Filing to be effective 4/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 2/15/24.
    Accession Number: 20240215-5040.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/27/24.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a 
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with 
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the 
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is 
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-917-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Section 154.311 Updated Statements to 
be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 2/14/24.
    Accession Number: 20240214-5198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 2/26/24.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified 
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access 
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For 
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as 
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is 
encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#06495656466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b2fde2e2f2d4d7c0d19cd5ddc4">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 15, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-03612 Filed 2-21-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-14-00810- CV
Stephen D. Fox, as nextfriend of C. F. and M. F ., Appellan t
v. Mirna Azuce na Alberto P ere z, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F CO MAL CO UNTY, 207 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. C2014 -16 13B , H ONO RAB LE DIP WALDRIP , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Stephen D. Fox filed his notice of appea l on Dec ember 24, 2014, and his brief was orig inally due on Fe bruar y 4, 2015. On Fox’s motion, the deadline for filing was extended to May 5, 2015. Howeve r, Fox did not file a brief by this deadline but instead filed a second motion, reque sting that we ex tend hi s deadline for fili ng to Aug ust 3, 2015. On M ay 14 , 2 0 1 5, this Court g rante d Fox’s second mot i o n fo r extension of time and order ed him to file his brief no later than Aug ust 3. We also notified Fox that his failure to comply with the order could result in the dismiss al
o f this appea l. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)
. To date, Fox has not filed a brief. Acc ording ly , we dismiss this appeal for

want of pr osecution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3 (b), ( c).____________________________________ Scott K. Field, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices Pemberton a nd Field Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: September

4, 2015

2
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



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Computer Software Innovations, Inc. (the
Company), each certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: May 20, 2005/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: May 20, 2005
#### Ted LIVESAY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28417.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 20, 1956.

Chas. H. Dean, Plainview, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The complaint alleges the " assault to have been made ¡by Ted Livesay upon Weldon Smith, a City Police Officer of the City of Plainview, then in the lawful discharge of the duties of his office and further alleges “and the said *J. T.*Livesay then and there being informed and knowing that the said Weldon Smith was then and there an officer discharging an officer’s duties * *

In order to charge an aggravated assault under Art. 1147(1), V.A.P.C., it is necessary that it be alleged and proved that it was known or declared to the offender that the person assaulted was an officer discharging an official duty.

No such allegation is found in the complaint before us, the quoted allegation being to the effect that such was known and declared to “said J. T. Live-say”. The statement of facts forecloses a finding that Ted Livesay and J. T. Live-say are one and the same' person. It shows that J. T. Livesay is a brother of Ted Livesay.

In the absence of a valid complaint the information will not support a conviction for the offense of aggravated assault. Addison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 283 S.W.2d 55; Byrom v. State, 158 Tex.Cr.R. 427, 256 S.W.2d 853.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

CONCURRING OPINION

No. 04-15-00004-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A. and A.A.I.

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-PA-00255

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice

Concurring Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 1, 2015

I am in full agreement with the majority opinion, but write separately to emphasize what 

the Supreme Court has long recognized as not only the statutory right to counsel in parental 

termination proceedings, but effective counsel. See TEX. FAM.CODE ANN. § 107.013 (West 2014);

In re M.S., 115 S.W.3d 534, 544 (Tex. 2003). In every case, the trial court, after appointing 

counsel, is best-positioned to recognize when counsel’s obligations as an officer of the court fall 

short for failing to appear at scheduled hearings. The court is also best situated to question whether 

counsel’s failure to appear on behalf of a parent whose rights are sought to be terminated risks 

depriving the parent of a fair trial. 

Because the trial court shall appoint an attorney to represent the interests of a parent in a 

termination case, and that parent has a right to effective assistance of competent counsel, a trial 

court is cautioned against proceeding to enter rulings where appointed counsel wholly fails to 
Concurring Opinion 04-15-00004-CV

- 2 -

appear on behalf of their client, without regard to a showing of prejudice. See In re J.M.O., 459 

S.W.3d at 90, 93-94 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.). It is difficult to imagine that any 

court can regard the performance of an attorney, one appointed by the court itself to serve in our 

civil parental-rights termination proceedings, and who then fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, 

each significant, as within the range of reasonable professional assistance. “Both the parent and 

the child have a substantial interest in the accuracy and justice of a decision.” In re M.S., 115 

S.W.3d at 547. The interests involved in parental-rights termination cases, including those held 

by the State, the parent and the child, are fundamental. When the court appoints counsel to protect 

those interests, yet fails to demand at a minimum counsel’s appearance in court before conducting 

a proceeding that will permanently and irrevocably affect the rights of a parent and child, it 

ostensibly contributes to the “risk of erroneous deprivation” that is “unacceptable.” Id. at 549. To 

expect less than what is required at a minimum by our rules of professional conduct, 

notwithstanding the service entrusted by the court upon appointed counsel, is for the court to suffer 

a tolerance for less than competent and diligent representation and a risk of rendering a 

presumptively unreliable result. 

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 28, 2022

No. 04-22-00371-CV

Jeanine Bell and Sheila PETSCH,

Appellants

v.

Darrell PETSCH,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16468

Honorable Albert D. Pattillo, III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The clerk’s record was originally due July 25, 2022, but was not filed. On July 26, 2022, 

the district clerk filed a notification of late record, requesting an extension until September 6, 

2022 to file the record. After consideration, we GRANT the request and ORDER the district 

clerk to file the record by September 6, 2022. Further extensions of time will be disfavored. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 28th day of July, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Casey Industrial, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00429-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

CASEY INDUSTRIAL, INC.,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI-06252

Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee Casey Industrial’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is 

GRANTED IN PART. The brief is due on September 12, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 27th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION

In
connection with the Annual Report of National Home Health Care Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended July 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert
P. Heller, Principal 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,
to the best of my knowledge:

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

| |  | (2) |  | The
information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
               respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
| |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 30, 2006

| | /s/
Robert P. Heller 
Robert P. Heller
Principal Financial Officer
| | ------------------------------------------------------------------

A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to National Home Health
Care Corp. and will be retained by National Home Health Care Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 10.2

Summary of Approved Changes to the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Controlled Affiliate License Agreements
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
ACTION                                  EFFECTIVE DATE  EXPLANATION
<S>                                     <C>             <C>
Replace page 4 with replacement 	N/A		Correction to the Plan(s') ownership of any for-profit
page 4                                                  controlled affiliate under paragraph 2(E)2 of the Controlled
                                                        Affiliate License Agreements, to properly reflect changes that were
                                                        previously approved by the BCBSA Board and Member Plans.
</TABLE>
Revised excerpt of Controlled Affiliate License Agreements, Paragraph 2(E)2:

In addition, a Plan or Plans directly or indirectly through wholly-owned
subsidiaries shall own more than 50% of any for-profit Controlled Affiliate.