alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit A

Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 3-1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 3-1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 3-1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 3-1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 5:20-cv-00646-JKP-RBF Document 3-1 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 5
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5669 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 

piperidyl)sebacate. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 9, 2012 

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

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Bis(2,2,6,6- 

tetramethyl-4-piperidyl)sebacate. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BIS(2,2,6,6-TETRAMETHYL-4- 

4 PIPERIDYL)SEBACATE. 

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

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4- 

piperidyl)sebacate (CAS 

No. 52829–07–9) (provided for in subheading 

2933.99.82) ....................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5669 IH

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

2 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 

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

4 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 12.02**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eric Merrigan,  certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 20-F of ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited;

 

2.             Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for,the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The company’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)       Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)       [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SECRelease Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]

 

(c)       Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(d)       Disclosed in this report any change inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.             The company’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: November 23, 2007

 

/s/ Eric Merrigan

Eric Merrigan

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 302 hasbeen provided to ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained byChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
AO 458 (Rev. 06/09) Appearance of Counsel

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Case No.

Defendant

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as counsel for:

.

Date:

Attorney’s signature

Printed name and bar number

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

FAX number

Case No: 6:20cv474 Filed: 07/06/20

Doc. #12

 Western District of Texas WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. ET AL. 6:20-CV-474-ADA DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., and EMC CORPORATION 07/06/2020 /s/ Barry K. Shelton Barry K. Shelton, TX 24055029

Shelton Coburn LLP 

311 RR 620 S, Suite 205 

Austin, TX 78734

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com (512) 263-2165 (512) 263-2166 Print Save As... Reset

Case 6:20-cv-00474-ADA Document 12 Filed 07/06/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32



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 The Standard Register Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending July 3, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis L. Rediker, President and Chief Executive Officer, and I, Craig J. Brown, Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of our 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 operations of the Company.





Date: August 3, 2005





/s/DENNIS L. REDIKER

Dennis L. Rediker

President and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ CRAIG J. BROWN

Craig J. Brown

Senior Vice President, Treasurer and

Chief Financial Officer
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICARDO VALDIVIAS-HERRERA, a.k.a. Ricardo Herrera, a.k.a. RicardoValdivia-Herrera, a.k.a. Ricardo VildviosHerrera, Petitioner,
v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent. No. 12-71132 Agency No. A079-625-493
MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 19, 2013 ** Before: HUG, FARRIS, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. Ricardo Valdivias-Herrera, a native a nd citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. We review for substantial 

# FILED
MAY 08 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS1 Because the parties are familiar withthe facts and procedural history underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
12-71132 2 evidence the agency’s factual findings and apply the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the Real ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder , 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review. 1 Because Valdivias-Herrera has not challe nged the IJ’s determination that he has been convicted of an aggravated felony that was a particularly serious crime, he is not eligible for asylum or withholding of removal, and his only potential avenue for relief is deferral of removal unde r the Convention Against Torture. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c) & (d); Arbid v. Holder , 700 F.3d 379, 385 (9th Cir. 2012); Lemus-Galvan v. Mukasey , 518 F.3d 1081, 1083 (9th Cir. 2008). Valdivias-Herrera contends that the agency’s adverse credibility finding was not supported by the evidence. We reject this contention. The agency’s adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence based on the totality of the circumstances, including the glari ng inconsistencies between the statements in Valdivias-Herrera’s asylum applica tion and the statements in his testimony concerning the reasons he feared being tortured and killed. See Shrestha , 590 F.3d12-71132 3 at 1040-44, 1046-47; see also Zamanov v. Holder , 649 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that alterations in basis of claim for persecution between an asylum application and subsequent testimony support an adverse credibility determination). The BIA applied the correct standardwhen it ruled on Valdivias-Herrera’s request for deferral of re moval under CAT. Because his testimony was not credible and there is no other evidence showing it is more likely than not he will be tortured if returned to Mexico, his CAT claim fails. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4)(B); Shrestha , 590 F.3d at 1048-49; Farah v. Ashcroft , 348 F.3d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 2003). Valdivias-Herrera’s remaini ng contentions are unavailing. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5407 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5407

   To suspend temporarily the duty on parts of machines for punching.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on parts of machines for punching.

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

SECTION 1. PARTS OF MACHINES FOR PUNCHING.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Parts of machines   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          for punching                                                      12/31/2015
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          8207.30.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 12

                  SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        Computation of Ratios of Earnings
                   from Continuing Operations to Fixed Charges
                              Total Enterprise (a)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>




                                      Nine Months Ended Sept 30,                               Years Ended December 31,


                                            1996           1995            1995        1994         1993         1992        1991
                                            ----           ----            ----        ----         ----         ----        ----

                                                                                              (In Thousands)
<S>                                      <C>            <C>             <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>

Earnings from Continuing Operations:
   Income (loss) before income taxes     $108,319       $110,352        $134,124    $ 76,098     $127,617     $126,691    $119,326
   Fixed charges (see computation below)   34,733         36,349          49,679      48,385       59,171       49,131      46,596
                                          -------       --------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------


Total Earnings Available for Fixed 
   Charges                               $143,052       $146,701        $183,803    $124,483     $186,788     $175,822    $165,922
                                         ========       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense before deducting
   interest capitalized                  $ 33,049       $ 34,206        $ 46,859    $ 45,900     $ 56,599     $ 46,298    $ 42,957
   Rentals(b)                               1,684          2,143           2,820       2,485        2,572        2,833       3,639
                                           ------       --------        --------    --------     --------     --------    --------


                                         $ 34,733       $ 36,349        $ 49,679    $ 48,385     $ 59,171     $ 49,131    $ 46,596
                                         ========       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========


Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges            4.1            4.0             3.7         2.6          3.2          3.6         3.6
                                             ====       ========        ========    ========     ========     ========    ========
</TABLE>





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

(a) Amounts  include  the  Company's  portion of the  captions as they relate to
persons accounted for by the equity method.

(b)  These  amounts  represent  1/3 of rentals  which  approximate  the interest
     factor  applicable to such rentals of the Company and its  subsidiaries and
     continuing unconsolidated affiliates.
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 97-50282

Summary Calendar

_____________________

ARTHUR B. CHAUSMER, M.D., Ph.D.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH

SCIENCE CENTER, ET AL.,

Defendants,

PAT CAMPBELL, Individually and in His

Official Capacity,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. MO-96-CV-132

_________________________________________________________________

December 4, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pat Campbell, in his individual capacity, appeals the denial

of his summary judgment motion.

To the extent that the denial of summary judgment, based on a

defendant’s assertion of qualified immunity, turns on an issue of

law, we have jurisdiction despite the absence of a final judgment.
-2-

Southard v. Texas Bd. of Crim. Justice, 114 F.3d 539, 548 (5th Cir.

1997). Campbell argues that Chausmer does not have a

constitutionally cognizable property or liberty interest in the

settlement agreement; Chausmer’s due process contentions merely

present a breach of contract claim; even if Chausmer had a

constitutionally viable interest, the constitutional right

allegedly violated was not clearly established; and Campbell’s

actions were objectively reasonable. We have carefully reviewed

the arguments and the appellate record. We conclude that Chausmer

failed to allege the violation of a cognizable interest under the

Due Process Clause, let alone alleging the violation of clearly

established constitutional law. See Vander Zee v. Reno, 73 F.3d

1365, 1368-71 (5th Cir. 1996). Thus, the district court erred in

denying Campbell judgment on the federal law claims in the light of

Campbell being qualifiedly immune.

Campbell also argues that the district court erred in denying

summary judgment on the state law claim of fraud in the light of

his defense of official immunity. Although asserted in his answer,

Campbell did not raise the defense of official immunity in his

motion for summary judgment, and the district court’s order denying

summary judgment did not refer to it. Therefore, we lack

jurisdiction to consider Campbell’s argument. See Cantu v. Rocha,

77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996).
-3-

For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s

order to the extent that summary judgment was denied to Campbell,

in his individual capacity, on the federal law claims. We REMAND

the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5543 

To amend the Social Security Act to expand the authority of the Secretary 

of the Treasury to access the National Directory of New Hires for 

purposes of tax administration. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself and Mr. MCDERMOTT) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Social Security Act to expand the authority 

of the Secretary of the Treasury to access the National 

Directory of New Hires for purposes of tax administration. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF 

4 THE TREASURY TO ACCESS THE NATIONAL 

5 DIRECTORY OF NEW HIRES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (3) of section 453(i) 

7 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 653(i)) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘administering section 32’’ and all that follows 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5543 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘tax administration (as defined in section 

2 6103(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).’’. 

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

4 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT**

**TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Randgold Resources Limited (the“Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, D. Mark Bristow, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

/s/ D. Mark Bristow                 

D. Mark Bristow 

Chief Executive Officer 

March 30, 2012
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

ORDER REGARDING OPPOSED REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINES

This Court, having considered disputes raised by Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a 

Brazos Licensing and Development (“Plaintiff”) against and Defendant ZTE Corporation 

(“Defendant”), hereby ORDERS the following:

1. Plaintiff’s request for a one-week extension for the Opposition to Defendant’s 

Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Final Infringement Contentions (EFC No. 268) (“Motion to Strike”) is 

GRANTED. The briefing schedule will be adjusted as follows:

Item Current Deadline Amended Deadline

Brazos’s Opposition to Motion to 

Strike 

November 4, 2022 November 11, 2022

ZTE’s Reply to Motion to Strike November 11, 2022 November 29, 2022

2. Plaintiff’s request for a one-week extension for the Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to Amend its Final Infringement Contentions (EFC No. 264) (“Motion for Leave 

to Amend the FICs”) is GRANTED. The briefing schedule will be adjusted as follows:

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA-DTG Document 242 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 2
2

Item Current Deadline Amended Deadline

Brazos’s Reply in Support of 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to 

Amend the FICs

November 3, 2022 November 10, 2022

3. The above briefing extensions do not change the date of any hearing, trial, or other 

Court date, or extend any deadline of a final submission that affects the Court’s ability to hold a 

scheduled hearing, trial, or Court event.

Signed this 31st day of October, 2022

____________________________________

DEREK GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA-DTG Document 242 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration 14CFR Part 39 IDocket No. FAA-2010-0554; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-082-AD; Amen 

## 10Lf76 ;L I- If, 39-**; AD 2010-**-**) RlN 2120-AA64 UTIN(jHMIlOI.

\ 

### c; 

## 'Z.,} (p OUTlNCi 5YMIlOL 

# A /V';I,f / rOo INI'I'I~I.sr.;lO 

# A

# B'\\\r?"\~
1

# '/0(, 110 Oll11NQ SVMUOi..



# .. ~ 1 e OlJmlG SYMIlOI.
I"rnALSISIC 

# r.we ATI' FlI11NOSl"Ml>OL also NI11Al.S1SIC; 's, m I .on

.'0(;S't0lll0L
~TIlfJ.S/Sj(i
m This new AD requires these same actions, using corrected service information. Th SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD) for the products listed above. That AD currently requirel modifying the auxiliary hydraul

and consequent loss ofthe airplane. DATES: This AD iseffee.ive [INSERT DATE 

## B5 DAYS AFTER DATE OF I PUBLlCATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. power system (including doing all applicable related investigative and corrective a ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

was prompted by fuel system reviews conducted by the manufacturer, as well as r ofelectrically shorted wires inthe right wheel wbll and evidence ofarcing on the auxiliary hydraulic pump power cables, whieh,e routed within the tire burst area are issuing this AD to prevent electrically shortetl wires or arcing atthe auxiliary hydraulic pwnp power cables, which could resull in afire in the wheel well. We ar issuing this AD to reduce the potential ofan ignition source adjacent to the fuel tan which, incombination with flammable fuel vapQrs, could result inafuel tank exp