alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Protecting Outdoor Workers Exposed to 

Ticks – NPMA Survey Results

Jim Fredericks

National Pest Management Association
NPMA Survey Results

Do your workers come in contact with ticks while 

servicing customers? (n= 16)

If yes, do your workers know about Lyme disease?

Yes – 100%
NPMA Survey Results

Would you like to have information to provide to 

your employees about Lyme Disease? (n= 16)
NPMA Survey Results

Would you like to have more information to pass 

on to your customers about this disease? (n= 16)
NPMA Survey Results

Does your company treat properties for fleas and 

ticks? (n= 16)
NPMA Survey Results

What kind of information do you want for 

employees and customers? (n= 16)
NPMA Survey Results

The response level for this survey was unusually 

low. Typical response is 8-10%.

Low response could indicate lack of concern or 

awareness.

Those who did respond are aware of tick-borne 

disease and want more information to educate 

workers and clients.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

September 8, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51286

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE IGNACIO GARCIA-SARABIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-383-ALL

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

Before KING, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Ignacio

Garcia-Sarabia raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of Synova Healthcare Group, Inc., (the Company) does hereby certify with respect to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the
Report) 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       |  |  |  |  |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------
|                       |  |  | 
|Date: November 7, 2007 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Edwards                    
|                       |  |  |  |  |  | Robert L. Edwards Chief Financial
Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title
18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
#### Ermer Lee BIGGINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27295.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 1, 1954.

No appearance for appellant.

Wesíey Dice, State’s Atty’., Austin, for the State.’

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, three days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record does not reflect that appellant entered into a recognizance or filed an appeal bond in the trial court.

In the absence of a proper bond or recognizance on appeal, this Court is without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal. Cantrell v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 596, 127 S.W.2d 471; Heard v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 67 S.W.2d 312; Faupel v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 430, 68 S.W.2d 1113.

The appeal is dismissed.
Shirley Hale Mathis, as 

Temporary Guardian of the 

Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, 

Jr., Carlos Y. Benavides III, 

Tomas Benavides and Ana B. 

s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 8, 2014

No. 04-13-00186-CV

Leticia R. BENAVIDES,

Appellant

v.

Shirley Hale MATHIS, as Temporary Guardian of the Estate of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr., Carlos 

Y. Benavides III, Tomas Benavides and Ana B. Galo, as Co-Trustees of the Benavides Family 

Mineral Trust,

Appellees

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CVQ-000427-D4

Honorable Oscar J Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-1627

_____________________________

ANTONIO RICHARDSON,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.

Angela C. Dempsey, Judge.

March 5, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, WINOKUR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Antonio Richardson, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### WALLACE v. STATE.

No. 23431.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 19, 1946.

Ralph C. Watson, of Dallas, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a case of aggravated assault, with punishment assessed at 730 days in jail and a fine of $500.

The State’s testimony shows that appellant inflicted upon the injured party a serious bodily injury by cutting him on each side of the neck, as a result of which thirty-eight stitches were necessary to close the wounds.

Appellant was not positive as to what happened. He testified that he did not believe he inflicted the injury.

The facts warranted the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

The bills of exceptions appearing in the record cannot be considered, not having been filed within the time required by law. Sec. 5 of Art. 760, C.C.P.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**Certification of Principal Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)**

**as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002**

 

I, Adam S. Winger, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of American CareSourceHoldings, Inc.;

 

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

 

Date: April 29, 2016

 

/s/ Adam S. Winger

Name: Adam S. Winger

Title: President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 4.381

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF TELECOM, 
 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS

 

LICENSE

 

No. 170430 dated February 17, 2019

 

To render

 

data transmission services for voice

 

This license has been granted to

 

Public Joint Stock Company

 

“Mobile TeleSystems”

 

Legal Entity (Individual Entrepreneur) 
 Primary State Registration Number 
 (PSRN/OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027700149124

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN/INN)

 

7740000076

 











 

Principal place of business (residence):

 

109147, Moscow, Marksistskaya St., 4

 

The territory of the services is specified in appendix hereto.

 

This license is valid through:

 

February 17, 2024

 

This license is issued based on the decision of the licensing authority - Order No. 816-рчс dated November 30, 2018

 

This license has an appendix as an integral part, which is executed on two sheets

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ A.A. Pankov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here
    	
 
    
	
Official   seal:

MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                  
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History: Annual                                            
|View History:                                                   
|                                                                
|California Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                
|                                                                
|California Natural Gas Number of Oil Wells  (Number of Elements)
|                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 25,958 | 26,061 | 26,542 | 26,835 | 27,080 | 25,088 | 24,690 | 40,368 | 42,965
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 41,923 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of American Media Systems Co. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, AJ Vesak, Director and 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 30th day of March 2009.

| |     |                                               
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------
| | BY: | AJ VESAKAJ Vesak, 
Principal Executive Officer
#### GRIFFEY v. STATE.

No. 26732.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1954.

*116Bernard A. Golding, Houston, for appellant. '• '

William H. Scott, Dist. Atty., King C. Haynie, Asst. .Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State. ,.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the possession of barbiturates ' (a violation of Section' 3(e) Of Article 726c, Vernon’s Ann.P-.C.); the punishment, 30 days in jáil and a fine of-'$250.

State Highway Patrolman Mayfield testified that on the day in question he followed appellant’s automobile for a distance, ascertained that he was driving 70 miles per hour; that he overtook appellant’s automobile, brought him to a stop, caused the appellant to get out and. searched his person. Nothing was found on the person of appellant other than a “wad of money.” We have recently in Soileau v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 244 S.W.2d 224, and in Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 263 S.W.2d 261, upheld a search of' the person of the driver of a motor vehicle who has been arrested for the violation of a traffic law.

The officer then searched the appellant’s automobile and there found under the front seat the barbiturates which constitute the basis' for the instant prosecution. He gave among his reasons for such search .that he-had heard' that appellant used some kind of narcotics and had seén appellant’s..name on a list put out by the Federal,' County and City officers of “known violators,- safe crackers, narcotic users and such.”

We think the facts, shpw sufficient probable cause to authorize the search of the automobile. It is not necessary, therefore, that we pass upon the question of whether or not the search of the automobile was authorized as an incident to the arrest' for speeding. - ■

Appellant in his able brief relies upon, several opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the most recent of which is U. S. v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210. Such authority is not controlling herein because no search of the automobile was máde’ in that case.

. Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the . trial court is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of PVH Corp. (“the Company”) for the quarterly period ended August 3, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Chirico, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





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

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













Dated:September 11, 2014By:/s/ EMANUEL CHIRICOName:Emanuel ChiricoChairman and Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2283 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2283

   To restrict funds for operations in Libya, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2011

 Mr. Gohmert (for himself, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Manzullo, and 
  Mr. West) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
  Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on 
  Armed Services and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To restrict funds for operations in Libya, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defund Libya Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be expended, obligated, or 
used in any manner to support directly or indirectly operations in or 
over Libya.
    (b) Rescission of Funds.--Any obligated, but not expended, funds to 
support directly or indirectly operations in or over Libya shall be 
rescinded.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS FOR NATO OPERATIONS IN LIBYA.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be expended, obligated, or 
used in any manner to support directly or indirectly North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization operations in or over Libya.
    (b) Rescission of Funds.--Any obligated, but not expended, funds to 
support directly or indirectly North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
operations in or over Libya shall be rescinded.

SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON FUNDS FOR OPERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNITED 
              NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1973.

    (a) In General.--No Federal funds may be expended, obligated, or 
used in any manner to support directly or indirectly operations in or 
over Libya in accordance with United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 1973.
    (b) Rescission of Funds.--Any obligated, but not expended, funds to 
support directly or indirectly operations in or over Libya in 
accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 shall 
be rescinded.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOHNNY AVERY TODD, a/k/a Pee Dog, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior District Judge. (CR-91-107) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnny Avery Todd, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his habeas motion, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988), as amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Todd , No. CR-91- 107 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 25, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                         
|                                                                      
|Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      
|                                                                      
|Gulf Of Mexico Natural Gas Processed in Louisiana (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 988,219 | 719,435 | 696,242 | 569,833 | 525,350 | 609,017 | 524,219 | 478,401
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 347,000 | 333,287 | 302,465 |         |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### DOMINGUEZ v. STATE.

No. 26959.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 21, 1954.

No attorney on appeal fof appellant.

Wesléy Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*143MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is felony theft; the punishment, five years..

The record contains no notice of appeal, and this Court is-without-jurisdiction;

The appeal is dismissed.