alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 15, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 02-30693

_____________________

HEATHER KRISTENE BARNEY, 

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SUSAN L. ARMSTRONG; CITY OF BOSSIER; ABC INSURANCE CO.; XYZ 

INSURANCE CO., 

Defendants - Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-164

_________________________________________________________________

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

We affirm for essentially the reasons set out in the good

opinion of the district court. 

AFFIRMED. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.
# Fourth Court o f Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 6, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00363

- CR

Eddie Lee LITTLE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 515763

Honorable Wayne A. Christian, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The State’s second motion for extension of time to file its brief is granted. We order the

State’s brief due December 28, 2017

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of December, 2017

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
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. §1350 (as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002), we,  the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Peoples Educational Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby
certify that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended
May 31, 2009 (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:  August
18, 2009





/s/
      Brian T. BeckwithBrian
      T. Beckwith,President
      and Chief Executive
Officer





/s/
      Michael L. DeMarcoMichael
      L. DeMarco,Executive
      Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
EXHIBIT 31

eROOMSYSTEM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, David S. Harkness, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of eRoomSystem Technologies, Inc., certify:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of eRoomSystem Technologies;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in the Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I, in conjunction with the Companys former Chief Accounting Officer, Derek K. Ellis, have:

a.

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during this period in which the quarterly report is being prepared;

b.

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c.

presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a.

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant'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 registrant's internal controls; and

6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

By:   /s/  David S. Harkness

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

August 19, 2003
           David S. Harkness                                Principal Financial and Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1811 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1811

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for employment and 
   reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time 
                          National Guard duty.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 10, 2011

Mr. Coffman of Colorado (for himself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Harper, and Mr. 
Roe of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for employment and 
   reemployment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time 
                          National Guard duty.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``National Guard Employment Protection 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS FOLLOWING CERTAIN NATIONAL GUARD DUTY.

    (a) Reemployment Rights.--Section 4312(c)(4) of title 38, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(F) ordered to full-time National Guard duty 
                under the provisions of section 502(f) of title 32 when 
                the period of duty is expressly designated in writing 
                by the Secretary of Defense as covered by this 
                subparagraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--Subparagraph (F) of section 4312(c)(4) of 
title 38, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply 
with respect to an individual ordered to full-time National Guard duty 
under section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, on or after 
September 11, 2001, and shall entitle such individual to rights and 
benefits under chapter 43 of title 38 of such Code on or after that 
date.
                                 <all>
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

160) ll-E-11 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:59 AM Sheet 160 of 276 
P.2 

l f 

II-E-11 

NSPS and PSD Applicability and tne port wasnington Project 

Tentative Agenda Items 

October 21, 1988 

1:00 p.m. 

I. NSPS Applicability 

- Hourly Emissions (S02, PM, NO*) 

- S02 Reduction Requirements (percent) 

- Partial S02 Scrubbing 

- Percent Flue Gas Scrubbed 

II. PSD Applicability 

- Netting Criteria 

- Other Pollutants Applicability 

- Federal Enforceable Limitations 

- PSD Permit Requirements 

V& 

\o^\

 v 
P.3 

- L . > * 

Enclosure B 

NSPS Applicability 

Port Washington Power Plant Renovati n Project 

FULL LOAD EMISSIONS AT CURRENT CAPACITY 

(BEFORE RENOVATION) 

S02 (LBS/HR) 

PM (LBS/HR) 

NOx (LBS/HR) 

UNIT-1 

1417 

15 

480 

UNIT-2 

1828 

16 

352^ 

UNIT-3 

2043 

12 

289 

UNIT-4 

1580 

12 

221 

UNIT-5 

- 0-

- 0-

- 0-

FULL LOAD EMISSIONS AT FUTURE CAPACITY 

(AFTER RENOVATION) 

S02 (LBS/HR) 

PM (LBS/HR) 

NOX (LBS/HR) 

UNIT-1 

2046 

16 

696 

UNIT-2 

2037 

16 

392 

UNIT-3 

2088 

12 

297 

UNIT-4 

2269 

17 

316 

UNIT2695 

15 

369 

r S02 (LBS/HR) 

PM (LBS/HR) 

NOX (LBS/HR) 

SUBJECT TO NSPS (AFTER RENOVATION) 

UNIT-1 UNIT-2 UNIT-3 UNIT-4 UNIT-5 

YES(a) YES(a) YES(a) YES(a) YES 

YES(b) NO NO YES(b) YES 

YES(C) " YEStC) YES(C) YES(c) YES(c) 

kNotes: 

(a) With less add-on control than NS^S requirement, emissions 

(lb/hr) would not increase ,and NSPS would not apply. 

(b) Because of planned ESP upgrade, PM emissions (lb/MM Btu) 

after renovation are expected to be less than NSPS requirement. 

However, NSPS would require CEMS for opacity. 

(c) Because arch-fired boilers are used at Port Washington, 

current NOx emissions (lb/MM Btu) are expected to be less than 

V^ NSPS requirements. However, NSPS would require a CEMS for NOx. 
P.4 

til SQ2 EMISSION RATE H I 

FOR 1987 

(0) HOURLY S02 EMISSION RATE (LBS S02/HR) (bl) 

UNIT-1 UNIT-2 UNIT-3 UNIT-4 UNIT-5 

ACTUAL PEAK 

ACHIEVABLE PEAK 

MAXIMUM DESIGN 

1417 

1459 

2046 

1S28 

1919 

2037 

2043 

2104 

2088 

1580 

1984 

2269 

ERR 

2230 

2693 

Note (bl) PER WEPCO MEMO SEPT 27, 1988 and OCT 4, 1988 

ttt 302 REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS U t (c) 

(E) PERCENT S02 REDUCTION REQUIRED (1) 

TOTAL • 

BASIS UNIT-1 UNIT-2 • llNIT-3 UNIT-4 UNIT-3 (d) PLANT (f) 

ACTUAL vs DESIGN 0.7 10.3 [TTj Q [74T] [j£ 

Note (c): 502 REDUCTION EQUATION •E=100(l-Di/Dd) 

WHERE: E=PERCENT REDUCTION REQUIREMENT FOR UNIT (X) 

Ci=PEAK 1-HR ALLONABLE S02 EMISSION RATE (ACTUAL) (LBS S02/HR) 

Dd=l-HR S02 EMISSION RATE AT MAXIMUM DESI6N CONDITIONS (LBS S02/HR) 

Note (d): Umt-5 Subject to SUBPART-Da REQUIREMENTS E=100(l-0.6/C5) 

WHERE: C5=UNC0NTR0LLED EMISSION RATE FOR UNIT-5 (2.38 LBS S02/HH BTU)
exhibit04_2.htm - Generated by SEC Publisher for SEC Filing



Exhibit 4.2


English Language Summary


 


 Protocol and
Justification of the Merger of TIM Celular S.A. by TIM S.A., dated as of
October 15, 2018, between TIM Celular S.A. and TIM S.A.


 


          On
October 15, 2018, TIM S.A., or TIM, and TIM Celular S.A., or TIM Celular,
entered into a Protocol of Merger and Justification by means of which TIM
Celular was merged into TIM in order to consolidate the telecommunication
services through the licenses SMP (personal mobile service), STFC (commutated
fixed telephonic service) and SCM (multimedia communication service), as well
as the added-value services and other economic activities performed by both
companies.


 


          The
integration of both companies’ operations has the purpose of promoting
operational and financial synergies, enhancing the competitiveness of the
companies in the market, and implementing a more efficient structure of
accounting systems and internal controls. 


 


          Upon the
completion of the merger, (1) TIM Celular will be extinct, as well as the
38,254,833,561 shares issued by it; (2) TIM Celular’s shareholder will receive
shares issued by TIM; and (3) TIM will be the successor of all of TIM Celular’s
rights and obligations.


 


          The
criteria used for the evaluation of TIM Celular’s net equity to be merged into
TIM is the accounting value accrued based on TIM Celular’s balance sheet dated
as of September 30, 2018. TIM Celular’s net equity was appraised as
R$17,035,253,769.34.


 


          TIM
Celular’s net equity will be allocated into TIM’s net equity accounts as
follows: (i) R$9,434,215,719.87 into the capital stock; (ii) R$30,600,309.64
into the capital reserve; (iii) R$7,110,252,722.96 into the profits reserve;
and (iv) R$460,185,016.87 into accumulated losses or profits. Upon the approval
of the merger, TIM’s capital stock will be increased to R$13,476,171,764.87
upon the issuance of 38,254,833,561 new common shares. The share exchange rate
of shares issued by TIM Celular to shares issued by TIM will be of one-to-one
share.


 


                The
completion of the merger was subject to the approval by the shareholders of
both companies.
Exhibit 31

                                  CERTIFICATION

      Re:   GSAA Home Equity Trust 2005-1 (the "Trust") Asset-Backed
            Certificates, Series 2005-1, issued pursuant to the Trust Agreement,
            dated as of January 1, 2005 (this "Trust Agreement"), among GS
            Mortgage Securities Corp. (the "Depositor") and Deutsche Bank
            National Trust Company, as trustee (the "Trustee")

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

I, Michelle Gill, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K (the "Annual Report"), and
      all reports on Form 8-K containing distribution date reports (collectively
      with this Annual Report, the "Reports") filed in respect of periods
      included in the year covered by this Annual Report, of the Trust;

2.    Based on my knowledge, the information in the Reports, taken as a whole,
      does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
      a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
      circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of
      the last day of the period covered by this Annual Report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required
      to be provided to the Trustee by the Servicer under the Servicing
      Agreement for inclusion in the Reports is included in the Reports;

4.    Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included in
      this Annual Report and required to be delivered to the Trustee in
      accordance with the terms of the Servicing Agreement, and except as
      disclosed in the Reports, the Servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
      the Servicing Agreement; and

5.    The Reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
      Servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
      report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a
      review in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for
      Mortgage Bankers or similar procedure, as set forth in the Servicing
      Agreement, that is included in the Reports.

            In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: the Trustee
and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Servicer.


    Date: March 29, 2006


    By: /s/ Michelle Gill
        -----------------------------
        Name: Michelle Gill
        Title: Vice President
#### Joe ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27401.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 2, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Dan Walton, Dist. Atty., Eugene Brady, Asst. Dist. Atty., Houston, Leon Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

On April S, 1954, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of passing as true a forged instrument in the Criminal District Court of Harris County; his punishment was adjudged at 2 years’ confinement in the penitentiary, and the execution of the sentence was probated.

On August 31, 1954, in said court came on to be heard a motion to revoke probation, alleging that on August 12, 1954, the appellant had committed the offense of driving while intoxicated. Appellant was represented by counsel at the hearing.

Alberta Jackson testified that the automobile in which she was riding had been run into by a truck. She stated that only she, the appellant and her husband were present at the scene and that appellant’s breath smelled like beer. She declined to testify that appellant was intoxicated.

James Jackson testified that following the collision he went back to the truck which had run into his automobile and saw the appellant getting out on the driver’s side, that he thought the appellant had been drinking but he also declined to say whether or not the appellant was intoxicated. Jackson stated that the officers arrived in approximately fifteen minutes.

Officer Walker testified that he arrived at the scene of the collision at approximately 9:40 p. m. on August 12 and there observed the appellant, smelled an alcoholic odor on his breath, noticed his manner of speaking, saw him walk with a swaying motion and concluded that he was intoxicated.

Appellant did not testify but offered his co-worker Felts, who testified that the appellant had not been drinking when he saw him last at approximately 6:00 or 6:30 on the night in question.

There are no bills of exception in the record, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the action of the court in revoking probation.

No abuse of discretion being shown, the judgment is affirmed.

DAVIDSON, Judge

(dissenting).

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion this day filed in Felan v. State, — S.W.2d -, I cannot agree to the af-*832-firmance of this *judgment. ■ I*therefore enter my dissent thereto.

A hearing, to determine if probation of sentence should be revoked is not the tribunal, time, or place to try out the issue ’of whether the probationer is guilty of violating the law.
EXHIBIT 99.3


                           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 Image Technology
Laboratories, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I David Ryon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ DAVID RYON
----------------
David Ryon
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002





<PAGE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00630-CR

MICHAEL ALEXANDER MURRAY

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-17-5228-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 10, 2019
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-09-457-CV

GARFIELD BAPTISTE APPELLANT

AND ALL OCCUPANTS

V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. APPELLEE

----------

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

On April 5, 2010, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as

required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten

days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.3. We have not received any response.

Because appellant’s brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for want

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: May 20, 2010

2
NEW YORK, NY 

CHICAGO, IL 

STAMFORD CT 

PARSIPPANY, NJ 

BRUSSELS BELGIUM 

AFFILIATE OFFICES 

MUMBAI INDIA 

By HAND DELIVERY 

Ms. Dorothy Y. Beard 

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 

A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP 

WASHINGTON HARBOUR, SUITE 400 

3050 K STREET, NW 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007-5108 

July 8,2010 

Director, Office of Information Systems 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

M-30, Room W12-140 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

FACSIMILE 

(202) 342-8451 

www.kelleydrye.com 

DIRECT LINE: (202) 342-8528 

EMAIL dfisher@kelleydrye.com 

-; 

.1 

Re: Application of United Parcel Service Co. for Allocation of One Frequency 

(U.S.-China), Docket OST-2010-0177 

Dear Ms. Beard: 

On July 2, 2010, United Parcel Service Co. ("UPS") filed an Application for an 

Allocation of One Frequency in the above-referenced docket. UPS polled all parties upon whom 

service was required by the Department's regulations and hereby informs the Department that no 

party has any objection to UPS's Application. Accordingly, UPS requests that the Department 

grant its Application as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much for your assistance. 

Sincerely, 

~It/L Danielle K. Fisher 

Attorney for United Parcel Service Co. 

cc: All parties (via e-mail) 

Esta Rosenberg (via e-mail)
June 10, 2015 

Mr. Timothy Foster 

Aerial Video & Photography 

9257 Sharon Street 

Juneau, AK 99801 

Dear Mr. Foster: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 20, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1821), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent 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, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 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. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us 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. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure