alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KE I T H L . NA S H, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R I C K R O B I N S O N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 36157 D . C. N o . 3 : 0 9 - c v - 0 5 1 7 8 - RBL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe W e s t e rn D i s tr i c tof W a s hi ngt on R ona l d B . L e i ght on, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry21, 2012 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , M cK E O W N , an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e ith L . N a s h ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in c o n n e c tio n w ith h is te rm o f

s u p e rv is e dr e le a s e df

r o m th e W a s h in g to n D e p a rtm e n t o f C o rr e c tio n s . 

# FI LED MA R 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 36157 2 W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . R am i rez v . C i t y o f B u en a P a rk , 5 6 0 F .3 d1 0 1 2 , 1 0 1 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ) . W e a f f irm . T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm entbecause N as h fai l ed to p r e s e n t a n ye v id e n c e c r e a tin g ag e n u in e d is p u te o f m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to a n yo f

h is c la im s . Se e M

at s us hi ta E le c . I

ndus . C o. , L td. v . Ze ni th R adi o C or p. , 475 U . S . 574, 5 8 7 ( 1 9 8 6 ) ; s e e al

s o U ni te d State s v . Ki nc ade , 379 F . 3d 813, 833 ( 9th C i r . 2004) (e n b anc) (r ec og ni zi ng “ w el l -e st abl i shed pri nci pl e thatparol ee s and other c ondi t i ona l r e l e a s e e s a r e note nt i t l e d t o the f ul l pa nopl yof

r i ght s a nd pr ot e c t i ons p o s s e s s e db yth e g e n e r a l p u b lic ” ) . T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde c l i ni ng t o c ont i nue defe nd ant s’ sum m ary j ud gm entm ot i on un t i l N as h cou l d con du ctdi sc ov ery be c aus e N a s h f

a i l e d t o i de nt i f

ythe s pe c i f

i c f a c t s tha tdi s c ove ryw oul d ha ve re veal ed or ho w tho se fa ct s w ou l d h ave been es se nt i al t o res i stthe sum m ary ju d g m e n t m o tio n . See Ca lifo rn ia v . Ca m p b e ll , 13 8 F . 3d 77 2, 77 9-80 (9th C i r. 19 98 ) ( re vi ew i ng for an abu se of di sc re t i on and sett i ng forth rel evantfa ct ors) . N as h’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 28, 2013

d1021 

# Order

Clerk October 28, 2013

147326

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 147326

COA: 312109

Van Buren CC: 11

- 017730

- FH

JOSE LUIS FRIAS,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 23, 2013 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED , because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2277 

To extend through the end of fiscal year 2011 the authority to make supplemental grants for population increases in certain States under the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2011 

Mr. DOGGETT (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Ms. BERKLEY, 

Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE of 

Texas, Mr. REYES, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. AL

GREEN of Texas, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend through the end of fiscal year 2011 the authority 

to make supplemental grants for population increases 

in certain States under the program of block grants 

to States for temporary assistance for needy families. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘TANF Supplemental 

5 Grants Extension Act’’. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2277 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL GRANTS UNDER 

2 THE TANF PROGRAM THROUGH THE END OF 

3 FISCAL YEAR 2011. 

4 Notwithstanding section 811(a)(2) of the Claims Res5 olution Act of 2010, grants and payments may be made 

6 under section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act through 

7 the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011 at the level provided 

8 for the activities authorized by such section 403(a)(3) 

9 through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2010, and out 

10 of any money in the Treasury of the United States not 

11 otherwise appropriated there are hereby appropriated such 

12 sums as may be necessary for such purpose. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
#### TINSLEY v. STATE.

No. 23825.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 3, 1947.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1948.

H. M. Hood, of Borger, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary by a jury on a charge of sodomy.

The statement of facts in the case is not approved by the trial judge and, consequently, cannot be considered. The action of the trial judge in refusing to approve the statement of facts, because the same was not filed within the time allowed by law, is commended.

In the state of the record there Is but one question presented for our consideration. A motion was filed to quash the indictment on the ground that there were no women on the grand jury which returned the indictment. A similar motion was directed to the panel from which the petit jury was selected. We find presented quite an interesting argument on the subject, however, this need not be discussed by us. Women are not permitted under the Constitution and laws of Texas to serve on juries and in the event any women should have been on the grand jury it would be necessary for this Court to quash the indictment. Harper v. State, 90 Tex.Cr.R. 252, 234 S.W. 909.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|                                                                                                                               
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                               
|Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                               
|Texas - RRC District 2 Onshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Extensions and Discoveries (Billion 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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 936    | 903    | 815    | 821   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 656    | 621    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
EXHIBIT 99.3
 
 CERTIFICATION OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER &
 ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 on Form 20-F/A of Global Green Matrix Corp. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 Date:  April 28, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Randy Hayward
 Randy Hayward
 President,
 Acting Chief Executive Officer, and
 Acting Chief Financial Officer
 
 
 
  
   This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 20-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6681

ANTHONY D. HAWKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus UNKNOWN OFFICERS, of the City of Baltimore in the District of Front Hill Southwestern Police Department; DAVID PHIPPS, E-128, an officer of the Front Hill Southwestern Police Department, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CA97-3509-PJM) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: October 26, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony D. Hawks, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony D. Hawks appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. 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. Hawks v. Unknown Officers , No. CA-97-3509-PJM (D. Md. Mar. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.2









Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Management of Protective Life Insurance Company and The Bank of New York, as Indenture Trustee of Protective
Life Secured Trust 2005-3, (collectively the "Management")
and Wilmington Trust Company, as Trustee of Protective Life Secured Trust 2005-3 (the "Trust"):

We have examined Management's assertion, included in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)," that the collection of payments on the funding agreements and distribution of payments to the noteholders has occurred as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee during the year ended December 31, 2005.  Management is responsible for the assertion.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting management's assertion and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, Management's assertion referred to above is fairly stated, in all material respects, based on the criteria defined in the accompanying "Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)."



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Birmingham, AlabamaMarch 31, 2006











Management Assertion Regarding the Collection and Distribution of Trust
Money by The Bank of New York (Indenture Trustee)





Management of the Trust asserts that it has collected payments on the funding agreements and distributed payments to the noteholders as required by Section 5.02 of the Indenture agreement dated November 7, 2003 between the Trust and the Indenture Trustee for the year ended December 31, 2005.  This assertion is based on the following criteria:

1. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in Protective Life's Secured Trusts P & I Payments: 1/1/05 through 12/31/05 (P & I Payments report).
2. The payments made by Protective Life on the funding agreements that secured the Notes, for the year ended December 31, 2005, are included in the Indenture Trustee's History of Transactions List.
3. The amounts due on the Notes are reported as a component of the charges from Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company, on the Indenture Trustee's Payment Obligation Report System (PORS Report).
4. Charges from Cede & Co. are included in the Indenture Trustee's screen prints titled The Depository Trust Company Activity History Details, which represent the charge confirmations to Cede & Co., the nominee of the Depository Trust Company.
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 Worldwide Energy & Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the "Company") 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"), I, Jimmy Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.




Dated: May 17, 2010
By:
/s/ JIMMY WANGJimmy WangChief Executive Officer (principal executive officer)
Order entered Novem ber 17 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00687

- CR

CHRISTY ALLANE RODRI GUEZ, Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 064768



### O RDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.
On November 13, 2015, the Court struck the second Anders brief filed by counsel
Michael Hamilton, granted Mr. Hamilton’s motion to withdraw, and ordered the trial court to
appoint new c ounsel to represent appellant on this appeal. We have received the trial court’s
order appointing Garland Caldwell as appellant’s new attorney.

We DIRECT the Clerk to list Garland Caldwell as appellant’s appointed attorney of

record.
Appellant’s brief is due within FORTY

- FIVE DAYS of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

p1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139633 

IN RE WILLIAM J. ALT, M.D., 

Respondent-Appellant, 

v SC: 139633 

 COA: 293046 

Bd of Med: 2006-000326 

BUREAU OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 

Petitioner-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 30, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### GILBERT et al. v. JACKSON et al.

No. 3191.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

March 4, 1954.

Crowley; Hudson & Keltnerj Ft. Worth, for appellants.

Gean B. Turner, Glyndon M. Hague, Cle-burne, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is án appeal from an order of the District Court of Johnson County overruling a plea of privilege filed by the defendant to be sued in Tarrant County.

*182Trial was before the court without a jury, which, after hearing the evidence tendered, overruled the plea of privilege. Defendants as appellants gave notice and perfected their appeal to this court, where said cause is pending for disposition. It has been made known to this court that all matters in controversy in the case have been settled and compromised by and between the parties, and that there no longer remains any issue for this court to determine and adjudicate. It is therefore the opinion of the court that this cause should be, and it is accordingly dismissed.
|                                                                                   
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                     
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                               
|View History:                                                                      
|                                                                                   
|Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   
|                                                                                   
|Kentucky Crude Oil + Lease Condensate Reserves Revision Decreases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 2      | 2      | 1      | 1      | 6      | 2      | 1      | 0      | 1     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### N. B. EARLY, Jr., Collector of Internal Revenue for the District of Virginia, Appellant, v. CHAS W. PRIDDY & COMPANY, Incorporated, a Corporation, Appellee.

No. 4175.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

July 7, 1937.

*1013Sterling Hutcheson, U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., and H. H. Holt, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., of Norfolk, Va., for appellant.

T. D. Savage, of Norfolk, Va., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment of District Court reversed. Judgment filed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 186 (Monday, September 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 57620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24500]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Death Valley National Park Advisory Commission; Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Commission Act that a meeting of the Death Valley National Park 
Advisory Commission will be held October 11 and 12, 2000 at the Furnace 
Creek Inn within Death Valley National Park.
    The main agenda will include:
    <bullet> Death Valley National Park's Revised Draft General 
Management Plan;
    <bullet> Updates on Park Operational Plans;
    <bullet> Appropriate field trips within Death Valley National Park, 
if time allows.
    The Advisory Commission was established by PL #03-433 to provide 
for the advice on development and implementation of the General 
Management Plan.
    Members of the Commission are Janice Allen, Kathy Davis, Michael 
Dorame, Mark Ellis, Pauline Esteves, Stanley Haye, Sue Hickman, Cal 
Jepson, Joan Lolmaugh, Gary O'Connor, Alan Peckham, Michael Prather, 
Wayne Schulz, and Gilbert Zimmerman.
    This meeting is open to the public.

Richard H. Martin,
Superintendent, Death Valley National Park.
[FR Doc. 00-24500 Filed 9-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P