alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 on Form 10-QSB of Concrete Casting
      Incorporated (the "COMPANY"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006,
      as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      "REPORT"), I, Cordell Henrie, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify,
      to
      my knowledge that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 15 U.S.C. 78m (a) or 780(d)); 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/
      Cordell Henrie





Cordell
      Henrie


Principal
      Executive Officer


Principal
      Financial Officer





Dated:
      August 11, 2006





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Concrete Casting Incorporated and will be retained by Concrete Casting
      Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
Order entered December 31 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01723 - CV CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

V. ROBIN LOPEZ, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 02070



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s December 19, 2013 “ unopposed motion to lift automatic stay to finalize settlement in trial court and abate interlocutory appeal .” We ORDER the automatic stay lifted and ABATE the appeal

. The appeal will be rei nstated February 3, 2014 or upon motion by the parties, whichever occurs soon er.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5350 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5350

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Dinotefuran.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Dold introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Dinotefuran.

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

SECTION 1. DINOTEFURAN.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.30 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Dinotefuran) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                 CERTIFICATIONS
                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION


                            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 Intelligent Motor Cars Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.


April 15, 2005                        Intelligent Motor Cars Group, Inc.
--------------

                                      By: /s/ Gerald Scalzo
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Gerald Scalzo, Chief Executive Officer
Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 269-1 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § 

§ 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

VS. § 

§ 

JOSE MIGUEL SANDOVAL-PINEDA, § 

§ 

Defendant. 

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: 

CRIMINAL NO. 

FILED 

FEB 0 5 2020 

CLER} U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

WEST Dt8TJCt OF TEXAS 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

INDICTMENT 

Ct 1: 18 U.S.C. §922(o) 

Illegal Possession of a Machine Gun 

Ct 2: 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(5) 

Illegal Alien in Possession of a Firearm 

A20 CR005 8JKP 

COUNT ONE 

[18 U.S.C. § 922(o)] 

On or about August 24,2019, in the Western District of Texas, Defendant, 

JOSE MIGUEL SANDOVAL-PINEDA, 

knowingly possessed a machinegun, that is, a Glock, model 19 Gen4, .9mm caliber pistol, serial 

number ACLF784, equipped with a conversion device that made it capable of firing automatically 

more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, in violation of 

Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(o) & 924(a)(2). 

COUNT TWO 

[18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)] 

On or about August 24, 2019, in the Western District of Texas, Defendant, 

JOSE MIGUEL SANDOVAL-PINEDA, 

knowing he was an alien illegally and unlawfully in the United States, knowingly possessed a 

firearm, to wit: a Glock, model 19 Gen4, .9mm caliber pistol, serial number ACLF784, and said 

firearm had been shipped and transported in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of Title 

18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(5) & 924(a)(2). 

Case 5:20-cr-00058-FB Document 13 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S DEMAND FOR FORFEITuRE 

[See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2] 

I. Firearms Violations and Forfeiture Statutes 

[Title 18 USC § 922(o) and (g)(5) subjects to forfeiture pursuant to 

Title 18 USC §924(d)(1), made applicable to criminal forfeiture by Title 28 USC § 2461] 

As a result of the foregoing criminal violation set forth in Counts One and Two, the United 

States of America gives notice to the Defendant JOSE MIGUEL SAND OVAL-PINEDA of its 

intent to seek the forfeiture of the below described properties upon conviction pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 32.2 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 924(d)(1), made applicable to criminal forfeiture by Title 28 

U.S.C. § 2461, which states: 

Title 18 USC § 924. Penalties 

(d)(l) Any firearm or ammunition involved in or used in any knowing violation of 

subsection . . . (g). . 

. (o). . . of section 922. . . shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture. 

under the provisions of this chapter.... 

This Notice of Demand for Forfeiture includes, but is not limited to, the following properties: 

1. Glock, Model 19 Gen4, .9mm pistol, receiver SN: ZGP972, barrel and slide SN: 

ACLF784, with a Glock switch attached to slide 

2. Any and all firearms, ammunition, and/or accessories involved in or used in the 

commission of the criminal offense. 

JOHN F. BASH 

UNUED STATES ATTORNEY 

BY: 

BRIAN NOW1NSKI 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 5:20-cr-00058-FB Document 13 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2
|                                                                                                       
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                                   
|View History:                                                                                          
|                                                                                                       
|Texas State Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       
|                                                                                                       
|Texas State Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 57     | 6      | 2      | 23     | 126    | 29     | 71     | 0      | 28     | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 20     | 2      | 23     | 6      | 0      | 3      | 15     | 0      | 0      | 2     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 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
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 5:20-cv-00314 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 5:20-cv-00314 Document 1 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 2
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 98-1479

___________ Frederick P. Moldan; Luann L. * Moldan, * * Appellants, * * v. * * State Bank and Trust Company of New * Ulm, Minnesota, a state chartered * financial institution doing business * Appeal from the United States as a Minnesota corporation; Dan * District Court for the Glickman, as Secretary of Agriculture * District of Minnesota. for the United States Department of * Agriculture; doing business as Rural * [UNPUBLISHED] Utilities Service and Farm Services * Agency; Brown County Rural * Electric Association, a Minnesota * chartered and member-owned * cooperative association; John Does, * 1-10; Jane Roes, 1-10; XYZ * Corporation, 1-5, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 19, 1999 Filed: April 2, 1999

___________ Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________1 TheHonorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the

District of Minnesota. -2- PER CURIAM. Fre derick P. Moldan and Luann L. Moldan appeal from the district court’s 1 order grantingthe summary judgment motion of defendants State Bank and Trust Company of New Ulm (State Bank) and the United States Secretary of Agriculture as to certain counts, and dismissing without prejudice the Moldans’ remaining claims. Having carefullyreviewed the record and the parties’ submissions on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s judgment is correct. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny State Bank's pending motion as moot. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Hunt, Hill and Betts, a Copartnership, Plaintiff, *v.*A. H. Bull Steamship Company et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

December 9, 1957.

*John H. Reilly, Jr.,*for defendants.

*Monroe J. Cahn*for plaintiff.

Owen McGtvern, J.

The defendants move pursuant to rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for dismissal of the complaint, upon the ground that the plaintiff has not legal capacity to sue, for the reason that the plaintiff was a partnership which has been dissolved. The plaintiff partnership brings this action to recover legal fees and disbursements. The services were rendered between February, 1951 and December, 1954. It is set forth that after the termination of the period during which the services were rendered, the constitution of the plaintiff law firm was significantly changed, in that one of the members of the firm .withdrew, and the claim is made by the defendants that full payment was made to this withdrawn member. In any case, it is defendants’ contention that section 222-a of the Civil Practice Act is not applicable. Under the common law a partnership sued or was sued by naming the members thereof, and *275by the enactment of section 222-a “ Two or more persons carrying on business as partners may sue or be sued in their partnership name whether or not such name comprises the names of the persons.” Defendants say that this does not apply to a dissolved partnership. There is no appreciable reason that because of dissolution the rule should be any different. The remaining partners of the dissolved partnership are still carrying on the business as partners, to the extent that they are liquidating partners. In the case of *Stikeman*v. *Whitman, Requardt & Smith*(272 App. Div. 627) a singular situation arose because the partnership was the defendant, and the partner served was the one who had withdrawn. Plaintiff relies on *Ruzicka*v. *Rager*(305 N. Y. 191). However, that case did not involve a dissolved partnership, but it does couple section 222-a with section 223, and this court believes that the plaintiff should be permitted to maintain the action in its present form, and accordingly the motion is denied.
Exhibit 31
                                                                    ----------


                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------


          I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

          1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports
          on Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in
          respect of periods included in the year covered by this annual
          report, of CWMBS, Inc., CHL Mortgage Pass-Through Trust 2005-12;

          2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these 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 master servicer under
          the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in
          these reports is included in these reports;

          4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the
          master servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,
          agreement and based upon my knowledge and the annual compliance
          review required under that agreement, and except as disclosed in the
          reports, the master servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          that agreement; and

          5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
          master 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 pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement, that
          is included in these reports.

          In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
          information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:
          The Bank of New York, as Trustee.


          Date: March 24, 2006


                                           /s/ Steve Bailey
                                           ----------------
                                           Steve Bailey
                                           Senior Managing Director
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 27004.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 23, 1954.

Ma~shall, King & Jennings, by Frank: Jennings, Jr., Graham, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully carrying a pistol: the punishment, a fine of $100.

Appellant owned and occupied a 1700s acre tract of land which was intersected by “Dry Creek”. A public road that had beeni a part of the tract ran along the northern edge of the 1,700 acre tract, and appellant, in going from his home east of Dry Creek to the part of his premises lying to the west thereof was compelled to use the public road for a distance of some two miles.

He was arrested while traveling this portion of the road in his automobile with a pistol in his pocket. He testified that he-had been having trouble with some dogs attacking and running wild game on the-west side of Dry Creek and that he quite often carried his pistol with him when he-went to that part of his premises.

Appellant had the lawful right to-carry a pistol on his own premises and this-right extended to every part thereof.

The public road was fenced and formed no part of such premises. Deuschle v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 355, 4 S.W.2d 559.

*407Under this authority appellant had the right to the full use of the public'road in question in the performance of any act or thing pertaining to the legitimate use and enjoyment of his premises, and when so using it did not violate the law in having with him a pistol on the public road, not for an unlawful purpose.

The case of Parker v. State, 76 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 174 S.W. 343, appears to support this conclusion.

Appellant having been found on1 a public road carrying a pistol, the burden' was upon him' to show that he was not carrying it unlawfully.

His testimony raised the issue that he entered the public road only for the purpose of traveling the part adjacent to his pasture from one part of his premises to another for legitimate purposes incident to the operation of his ranch. This defense was not submitted to the jury.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.
__M_R---C-EN_T_E._R__IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEXITIJEACTTVAlED=CREWSEATS:A.TTENDNITBEATSSSEA111PASSENGERSEATS:OFFICE&9EAT9DINr-IGI.Ql.N;E7SEA111CHILDREN'SLOUNGE4SEA18FEM\LE8TAFF8EA'l"'''IG•SEATSMALESTAFF9EA11NQISEAnlTOTALPASSENGERS:2B8EAT8(TAXI.TAJCE..OFF.ILANDING)ASSOCIATEDAIRCENTERMAIN.IW.l_,_.•.__.u.a'-".]:tl'ENTRANCE:=s:.==r-,.,FLOORPLANfPLANVIEW
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5328 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Laromer PE 55 F. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 7, 2012 

Mr. DINGELL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Laromer PE 55 F. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LAROMER PE 55 F. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5328 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 A mixture of Hexanedioic 

acid, polymer with 1,2- 

ethanediol, 2-ethyl-2- 

(hydroxymethyl)-1,3- 

propanediol and 1,3- 

isbenzofurandione, 2- 

propenoate (CAS No. 

77107–23–4) and 1,3- 

Propanediol, 2,2- 

bis(hydroxymethyl)-, polymer with 2- 

(chloromethyl)oxirane, 2- 

propenoate (CAS No. 

57903–73–8) (Laromer 

PE 55 F) (provided for in 

subheading 3907.99.01) .... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS