alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fernando CORONA, Appellant, v. Homer GARRISON, Jr. and Charles Windberg, Jr., Appellees.

No. A-4942.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1955.

Galvan & Galvan, El Paso, for appellant.

• John Ben Shepperd, Atty. Gen., and J. Milton Richardson, Asst. Atty. Gen., R. B. Redic, Asst. County Atty., El Paso, for appellees.

WILSON, Justice.

This is a direct appeal from a district court judgment denying a request for an injunction to halt a proceeding in the justice court. The justice court case was initiated by the Department of Public Safety under Section 22 of Article 6687b for the purpose of obtaining an affirmative finding that appellant is a habitual -violator of the traffic laws.

Our jurisdiction on direct appeal in‘this type of case under Art. 1738a, V.A.C.S., and under Section 3-b of Article V of the Texas Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St., is limited to appeals “from any order of any trial court granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunction on the ground of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of any statute of this State.” Boston v. Garrison, 152 Tex. 253, 256 S.W.2d 67.

Appellant seeks to sustain his direct appeal here on the ground that he questions the constitutionality of Section 22, Article 6687b, V.A.C.S. ■

The trial court’s judgment reflects that the injunction was denied because “the defendant has suffered no injuries at this time” and because the defendant “has a proper and adequate remedy at law.”

. The trial court, in denying the injunction, .did not pass upon the constitutionali*542ty of the statute and for that reason we have no jurisdiction of this direct appeal. Appellee’s motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction is granted. Costs are taxed against appellant.
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 18
MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: Skin: Wear appropriate chemical resistant protective clothing 

and chemical resistant gloves to prevent skin contact. Use nitrile-type 

glove material. Rinse immediately if skin is contaminated. Wash 

contaminated clothing and clean protective equipment before reuse. Wash

thoroughly after handling. // Eye protection: Where eye contact may be 

likely, wear chemical goggles and have eye flushing equipment available.

// Investigate engineering techniques to reduce exposures. Provide 

ventilation if necessary to minimize exposures.If practical, use local

mechanical exhaust ventilation at sources of air contamination such as

open process equipment. 

Respirator: Avoid breathing vapor or mist. Where airborne exposure is

likely or airborne exposure limits are exceeded (if applicable, see 

above), use NIOSH approved respiratory protection equipment appropriate

to the material and/or its components (full facepiece recommended). 

Consult respirator manufacturer to determine appropriate type equipment

for a given application. Observe respirator use limitations specified

by NIOSH or the manufacturer. For emergency and other conditions where

there may be a potential for significant exposure or where exposure limit

may be significantly exceeded, use an approved full face 

positive-pressure, self-contained breathing apparatus or 

positive-pressure airline with auxiliary self-contained air supply. 

Respiratory protection programs must comply with 29 CFR § 1910.134.

Health Effects: Signs and symptoms of acute exposure: May cause eye 

irritation. May cause skin irritation. Skin: Moderately irritating. 

(data for similar material). Eyes: Moderately irritating. (data for 

similar material). 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 7 of 18
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 8 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 9 of 18
INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 14-0216 0217, 0218 

 

 

 

 

 X 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 T 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 T 

 

 X 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 10 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 11 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 12 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 13 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 14 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 15 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 16 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 17 of 18
EPA SANITIZED Page 18 of 18
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.’s33-106109, 33-62796, 333-30383, 333-57951, 333-76005, 333-79611, 333-95641, 333-31728, 333-35056, 333-89140 and 333-36280 of RepliGen Corporation and in the related Prospectus of our report dated June 8, 2006, with respect to the financialstatements of RepliGen Corporation, Repligen’s Corporation’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of RepligenCorporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended March 31, 2006. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Boston, Massachusetts 

June 8, 2006
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MARK LEIGH

(14561)

Foti, Lavery and Schaller, Js.

Argued December 5, 1995

decision released January 9, 1996

*905
      *Robert G. Golger,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Richard F. Jacobson,*supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were *Donald A. Browne,*state’s attorney, and *Gerard Eisenman,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

The judgments are affirmed.
#### G. H. HAYWARD, Appellant, v. Hazel DUIKER, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Hendrik Duiker, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 3154.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Feb. 25, 1955.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1955.

Walton S. Morrison and Carroll Smith, Big Spring, for appellant.

McCormick, Branum, Cason & Jennings, Midland, for appellee.

LONG, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Hazel Duiker, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Hendrik Duiker, deceased, against G. H. Hayward on a promissory note alleged to be in the principal sum of $5,000 and to provide for interest and attorney’s fees. Hayward answered, denying that there was any sum of money due on said note and specifically denied that he is obligated to pay attorney’s fees under the terms of the note. He further plead two separate counterclaims against plaintiff, one in the sum of $2,731.75 and a second for $2,119.44. The case was tried before the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff for $2,462.57 on the note, together with ten per cent attorney’s fees. Hayward has appealed.

Appellant contends the court erred in rendering judgment for appellee because she failed to introduce the note in evidence. This contention is sustained. Appellee failed to introduce the note in evidence. It does not appear in the statement of facts. In fact, the record shows that counsel for appellee declined to introduce it. It is true that appellant did not file a plea of non est factum but this did not relieve the appellee of the duty of introducing the note in evidence. It will be noted that appellant specifically denied that the note provided for attorney’s fees. In the absence of the note in the statement of facts this court cannot determine whether this is true or not. There is nothing upon which the judgment for appellee can rest because the note upon which she sues was not introduced in evidence. Pope v. American Surety Co. of New York, 42 Tex.Civ.App. 152, 93 S.W. 480; Webb v. Reynolds, Tex.Com.App., 207 S.W. 914.

We find no merit in any of the other points of error presented. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
**Exhibit 3.4**

 

**CERTIFICATEOF CORRECTION**

**TO**

**CERTIFICATEOF AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**CERTIFICATEOF INCORPORATION**

**OF**

**INFOLOGIX,INC.**

 

InfoLogix, Inc.,(the “Corporation”), a corporation organized and existing under and by virtueof the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, does hereby certify:

 

1.             That a Certificate of Amendment toCertificate of Incorporation (the “Certificate of Amendment”) was filed withthe Secretary of State of Delaware on January 4, 2010 and that theCertificate of Amendment requires correction as permitted by Section 103(f) ofthe General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware.

 

2.             Paragraph 4 of the Certificate ofAmendment is an inaccurate record of the Certificate of Amendment in that it inadvertentlyand incorrectly states that the par value of the shares of stock of theCorporation is $0.0001 per share, though such par value is $0.00001 per share.

 

3.             Paragraph 4 of the Certificate ofAmendment is corrected such that the first paragraph of Article FOURTH of theCertificate of Incorporation of the Corporation is as follows:

 

“**FOURTH**: The total number of shares of stock which theCorporation shall have authority to issue is One Hundred Ten Million(110,000,000) shares, all of such shares shall be $0.00001 par value per share,without cumulative voting rights and without any preemptive rights, and ofwhich One Hundred Million (100,000,000) shall be designated Common Stock andTen Million (10,000,000) shares shall be Preferred Stock, all of such PreferredStock shares shall be of such classes and series and have such voting powers,full or limited, or no voting powers and such designations, preferences andrelative, participating, optional or other special rights and qualifications,limitations or restrictions thereof as the Board of Directors may determinefrom time to time.”

 

INWITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of Correction toCertificate of Amendment to be signed by its Chief Executive Officer this 3rdday of February, 2010.

 
|   | InfoLogix, Inc. |
|--------|----------------------|
|   |                 |
|   | By:             | /s/  DAVID T. GULIAN |
|   |                 | Name:  David T. Gulian |
|   |                 | Title:  Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 23.1














Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-125694) pertaining to the PVH Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of our report dated June 26, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of the PVH Associates Investment Plan for Residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico included in this Annual Report (Form 11-K) for the year ended December 31, 2014.











/s/ SPIELMAN KOENIGSBERG & PARKER, LLP





SPIELMAN KOENIGSBERG & PARKER, LLP








June 26, 2015
EXHIBIT 32
                                                                ----------

          CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                 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 Annual Report of Touchstone Applied
Science Associates, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the
period ending October 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew L.
Simon, President and Director 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
result of operations of the Company.

January 26, 2007

                                        /s/ ANDREW L. SIMON
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Andrew L. Simon, President,
                                         Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY
SECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING,
OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM
WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO TOUCHSTONE
APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY
TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO
THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
REQUEST.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3
v. NO. 35,374 4 JORDAN G., 5 Child-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Marci E. Beyer, District Judge 8 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General 9 Santa Fe, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Herman E. Ortiz 12 Mesilla Park, NM 13 for Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 WECHSLER, Judge. 162 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of 1 proposed summary disposition. No me morandum opposing summary affirmance has 2 been filed and the time for doing so has expired. 3

{2} Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in our calendar notice. 4 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

__________________________________ 6 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 7 WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 12
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 Deep Down, Inc. (“Deep Down”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“the Report”), the undersigned, Gay Stanley Mayeux, Chief Financial Officer of Deep Down, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 Deep Down.





This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Report. A signed original of this statement has been provided to Deep Down and will be retained by Deep Down and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





Date:  May 17, 2010





/s/GAY STANLEY MAYEUX


Gay Stanley Mayeux


Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 32.1   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unico, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark A. Lopez, Chief Executive 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 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 the operations of the Company.  Date: January 20, 2009/s/ Mark A. Lopez
Mark A. Lopez
Chief Executive Officer  [A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Unico, Incorporated and will be retained by Unico, Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
ACCEPTED03-14-00064-CR4461707THIRD COURT OF APPEALSAUSTIN, TEXAS3/11/2015 3:32:01 PMJEFFREY D. KYLECLERK
Exhibit 18.1



IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.
One Monument Circle, P.O. Box 1595 
Indianapolis, IN 46206


We have audited the consolidated financial statements of IPALCO Enterprises,
Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and for each of the three years in the 
period ended December 31, 1997, included in your Annual Report on Form 10-K to 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and have issued our report thereon dated
January 23, 1998.  Note 3 to such consolidated financial statements contains
a description of your adoption during the year ended December 31, 1997, of 
the method of accounting for accrued revenues for services provided but
unbilled at the end of each month.  In our judgment, such change is to an
alternative accounting principle that is preferable under the circumstances.



Deloitte & Touche, LLP

January 23, 1998
October 19, 2015

Mr. Brendan Turner

The Aerial Advantage Iowa

1508 East 5th Street

Vinton, IA 52349

Dear Mr. Turner:

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

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

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your exemption request, posted to the public docket on July 22, 2015, on behalf of 

The Aerial Advantage Iowa filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3089, but we are unable to 

process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of 

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and the extent of 

the relief you seek.

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

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

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

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

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

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

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

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

If We Do Not Hear From You

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

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

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
Exhibit 32

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 on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2010 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Nancy K. HedrickNancy K. HedrickChief Executive OfficerDate: May 14, 2010/s/ David B. DechantDavid B. DechantChief Financial OfficerDate: May 14, 2010




44
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1850 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1850

 To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to 
  include members of the Army who participated in combat during which 
 they personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at 
                 any time on or after December 7, 1941.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 11, 2011

  Mr. Nugent introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To expand retroactive eligibility of the Army Combat Action Badge to 
  include members of the Army who participated in combat during which 
 they personally engaged, or were personally engaged by, the enemy at 
                 any time on or after December 7, 1941.

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

SECTION 1. RETROACTIVE AWARD OF ARMY COMBAT ACTION BADGE.

    (a) Authority to Award.--The Secretary of the Army may award the 
Army Combat Action Badge (established by order of the Secretary of the 
Army through Headquarters, Department of the Army Letter 600-05-1, 
dated June 3, 2005) to a person who, while a member of the Army, 
participated in combat during which the person personally engaged, or 
was personally engaged by, the enemy at any time during the period 
beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on September 18, 2001 (the 
date of the otherwise applicable limitation on retroactivity for the 
award of such decoration), if the Secretary determines that the person 
has not been previously recognized in an appropriate manner for such 
participation.
    (b) Procurement of Badge.--The Secretary of the Army may make 
arrangements with suppliers of the Army Combat Action Badge so that 
eligible recipients of the Army Combat Action Badge pursuant to 
subsection (a) may procure the badge directly from suppliers, thereby 
eliminating or at least substantially reducing administrative costs for 
the Army to carry out this section.
                                 <all>
```