alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE f.TI**  **’ ORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TRX.- AUSTIN** 



### 'Zenorable

Gee. H. ShepplZ'd fJomptroller

of Publl.0

Aooouuta Austin,Texas 'bear Xr. 3heppa-l

t Opinion

x0. e-5317

Tou request 

### the winion or thla department on the 'following

questic+nst

& isSue **a** 

### warrentin paymentor

the Legislature

who Is

0 Oomtitutlon sf

Tit44 Sootion**04ntiinS** 

### ma$erialto thie disaussion. oertainexoep

The plaoe ef member of the Legialat 17 an bffioe **4i** 

### boner, truatand rmoftt**und4r**Hennonble **G44.** Ii.l%h4plm?d - p~go 2

& person holding a positien of “Field Werker" in the Dspartment of Pub110 Uelfape la fan "appelntee". enr Opb.iea X0. 

### O-2&7). (844 Thher4f4r4,

seoti4n



### 33 proMbltr **4u** frea.dro?inga vrnwnt~upda the treasury :t4 pay ~h4 salary es a "PioldWorkera, who heldr, for

t th4 period fer whioh thb.salary is 014isled to be due, the **4ffi.44** of Mglsl&or. (see Oplniot~ of the Attornay General, 

### 1912-19n,,~. 873).

Y4ur a40+id que8ti4n ie aeye gen4ra1, and 

## wiii reoelv4 a gen4ral answer.

.It **the** plaoe in the F4d4ral ditil Servlae is an *4rffaea;then,upen aoeept;ing and quallr;ring

therefor the 

### Bomber 4f the Legl8iatum tiFl1 

### l utoautioallyforfeit and raoat4 his 4fti04,aa~.n14mbezr 4f tha 'Iferss

LegLslatur4,%epf4me of th4 prm-lsieus **ef** th& Bou6tNAtlelr,&rti414.1., (lootleo

12.'.It the~.plaoo

in.th4.FodeyIIciril Serrioe ia 

### n 4 t l n.?4ffi,a4u%ut.a ,~~'poeition"~:of'.~4ner, trwt or pretit", then,.under-Seoti~ 

### 33#. the.memb4r of-the Legislature oeuld sot buoempenaated;as~a\ if, oper~$he'pexGd 

### fer whl.oho~lppeuaatloti

aa 8 memb4r of the.Le@O.atu3?e,var olalmd, **ha** alre h4ld.the:plao4In-th4 F#eraL Q$til Bervioe. ,Sinae **maobern .4f**  the.Le&lalatum are..@+id.per diam 

### l hly for the day'9 duringvhioh~th4.,&.3gislat!jr4 is.iu seasidn' the 1~iePlb0r of th4.Legirlature:would.not prejudloe hla~~rl.@& te 04m- .Denaatlen

a.(~ suahi:~f.he.held

th4 poa$tlon in the:F4dsral QIdl dervtocr'ealy:duriag pez&di'lu irhtoh

the Lbgialatum Va8 not in seasi@&;: :544tlon 

### 33.

deprl%65 the 

### l

rfiaer, 

### l

gsnt 

### 4r a3bpointee

.4fthe$right to b4 04mp4mfst4dKjth respeot 4ulP **%4** the period duA.n&whloh he.hoLds another errioe 

### w P4aLtL4n 4f h4aers trust *r:pref%t. :



### Attorrmy

Oenera?
In the Senate of the United States, 

December 15, 2014. 

Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 2866) entitled ‘‘An Act to require the Secretary 

of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of Boys Town, and for other purposes.’’, do pass with 

the following 

AMENDMENT: 

On page 7, strike lines 8 through 10, and insert the 

following: ‘‘shall be paid to the United States Treasury for 

the purposes of reducing the national debt.’’. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 2866 

AMENDMENT
#### SIMMONS v. STATE.

No. 22416.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1943.

E. B. Lewis and Dudley Davis, both of Center, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is murder. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years.

There are not any bills of exception nor a statement of facts in the record. Consequently, the only question presented for review is the sufficiency of the indictment. It contains three counts. The court submitted the case to the jury on the first count which, omitting the formal parts, reads as follows :

> “That Carroll Simmons on or about the 25th day of April, A. D., one thousand nine hundred and forty-two and anterior to the presentment of this Indictment, in the County of Shelby and State of Texas, did then and there unlawfully while intoxicated and while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, drive and operate a motor vehicle, an automobile upon a public highway of this state, to-wit the public highway leading from Timpson to Center by Huber, and did then and there, in the execution of said unlawful act, through mistake and accident, kill W. A. McLemore by then and there driving said automobile into and causing it to collide with the automobile occupied by the said W. A. Mc-Lemore,” etc.

Appellant in due time filed a motion to quash the indictment on the ground that it charged a misdemeanor and a felony in the same indictment. He also challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court to try the case. This prosecution was based upon Art. 802c, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., which reads as follows:

> “Any person who drives or operates an automobile or any other motor vehicle upon any public road or highway in this State, or upon any street or alley or any other place within the limits of an incorporated city, town or village, while such person is intoxicated or under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and while so driving and operating such automobile or other motor vehicle shall through accident or mistake do another act which if voluntarily done would be a felony, shall receive the punishment affixed to the felony actually committed.”

 It is obvious that anyone driving an automobile along and upon a public highway while drunk or under the influence of intoxicating liquor and while in the performance of said act, by mistake or accident, kills another person, he is guilty of murder just as much so as if he had voluntarily killed the person. In our opinion, the indictment does not .charge two offenses in the same count. It charged but one offense, to-wit; murder. ' The elements constituting this offense were properly charged in the language of the statute which is sufficient.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*172PER 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.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 62766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26931]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-127]


NASA Advisory Council, Space Flight Advisory Committee (SFAC); 
Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Space Flight Advisory 
Committee.

DATES: Monday, November 6, 2000 from 8 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. and on 
Tuesday, November 7, 2000 from 8 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, Atlas Room, Kennedy 
Space Center, FL 32899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Y. Edgington (Stacey), Code 
M, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 
202/358-4519.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--Overview, status and metrics for Office of Space Flight programs.
--Shuttle upgrades discussion.
--International Space Station commercialization

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: October 16, 2000.
Beth M. McCormick,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-26931 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Exhibit ‘N’

Subject to Protective Order. Provided to Court for in camera review pursuant to 

Order. 

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 110-14 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.2

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 Pathmark Stores, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 2,
2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Frank G. Vitrano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/ FRANK G. VITRANOName:

Frank G. VitranoTitle:

President and
Chief Financial OfficerDate:

December 17, 2002


---

QuickLinks
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2816 

To extend the pilot program under section 258 of the National Housing 

Act that establishes an automated process for providing alternative credit 

rating information for mortgagors and prospective mortgagors under 

certain mortgages. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 24, 2013 

Mr. AL GREEN of Texas (for himself, Ms. CHU, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. DANNY

K. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. CARSON of Indiana, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. PERLMUTTER, and Ms. MOORE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To extend the pilot program under section 258 of the National Housing Act that establishes an automated process 

for providing alternative credit rating information for 

mortgagors and prospective mortgagors under certain 

mortgages. 

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 ‘‘FHA Alternative Cred5 it Pilot Program Reauthorization Act of 2013’’. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2816 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM. 

2 Section 258(d) of the National Housing Act (12 

3 U.S.C. 1715z–24(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘5-year’’ and 

4 inserting ‘‘10-year’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
6100 Boeing Avenue  Anchorage, Alaska 99502  (907) 771

- 2500  Fax 771

- 2664  www.penair.com Peninsula Airways, Inc. D/B/A P EN A IR April 16, 2014

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Chief Counsel Attn: Rules Docket, ACG

- 10 Exemptions and Approvals 800 Independence Avenue, SW. Washington, D.C. 20591 Via website: regulations.gov

R E: Oxygen for Medical Patients (Exemption No. 6523 H / Docket No. FAA

- 2001

- 9940 )

Peninsula Airways, Inc. d/b/a PenAir respectfully requests the Department of Transportation (DOT) for a two

- year extension of Exemption No. 6523H

, allowing PenAir to carry and operate oxygen storage and di spensing equipment for medical use by passengers requiring emergency or continuing medical attention when the equipment is furnished and maintained by the hospital that is treating the passengers.

Our current exten sion expires on October 31, 2014

. The conditions that existed when this exemption was initially granted have not changed. The exemption is still in the public interest and does not reduce the level of safety required by the Federal Aviation regulations.

PenAir has transported oxygen storag e and dispensing equipment under this exemption without incident during this period and would like to be granted an extension with the

same conditions and limitations.

I look forward to hearing from you. If you have any questions, please call me at (907)

771

- 2552

.

Sincerely,

Matthew Macri Director of Operations
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21 - 0326

_________________ ST ATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TIMOTHY JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable John C. Brown , District Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 12 2023

04/12/2023
Case Number: DA 21-0326
Exhibit 32.1
                      Statement Furnished Pursuant to
               Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



     The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Monarch Staffing, Inc. (the "Company"). This Certificate is made
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This
Certification accompanies the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "10-KSB Report").   The
undersigned certify that the 10-KSB Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the 10-KSB Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods
presented therein.


Date: January 10, 2007               /s/ Joel Williams
                                     ------------------------------
                                         Joel Williams
                                         Chief Executive Officer


Date: January 10, 2007               /s/ David Walters
                                     ------------------------------
                                         David Walters
                                         Chief Financial Officer



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



                               End of Filing
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,

ZTE (TX), INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00491-ADA

ORDER SETTING MOTION HEARING HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

MOTION HEARING by Zoomoom on Friday, July 16, 2021 at 11:00 AM.

set

IT 15th day of July, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JONATHAN B. HILL

MEMBER

D 202/776-2725 E JHILL@DOWLOHNES.COM

DF 202/776-4725

July 16, 2012

Ms. Esta Rosenberg

Chief, U.S. Carrier Licensing Division

Office of International Aviation

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Application of JetBlue Airways Corporation for Statement of Authorization

DOT Docket OST-2012-0115

Dear Ms. Roesnberg:

JetBlue Airways has completed its polling of all carriers served with its Application for an 

Exemption for approval of its service to the Cayman Islands filed on March 19, 2012 in Docket OST2012-0115. No carrier advised us of any objection to the grant of the application. JetBlue therefore 

asks for action on its application as soon as may be practical.

Sincerely yours,

Jonathan B. Hill

Counsel for 

JetBlue Airways Corporation

cc: Service list in Docket OST -2012-0115

Adam Schless
exhibit 32







FORM OF SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS



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 Premier Document Services, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Crystal Kim Han, President/CEO and Treasurer/CFO, of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.











/s/ Crystal Kim Han

Crystal Kim Han

President/CEO and Treasurer/CFO

March 31, 2004





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.

#
Group 4 – Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief 

(Civil Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA, 6:20-cv-00581-ADA, and 6:20-cv-00582-ADA) 

EXHIBIT #10 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 6
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 2 of 6
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 3 of 6
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 4 of 6
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 5 of 6
Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 34-10 Filed 02/12/21 Page 6 of 6
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMI S SION

OF MARYLAND

Petitioner

v.

JEFF A. GODFREY

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG

No. 0037

Respondent* 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * - J- - - - -::1t-tfi?t-t-T:*i ?91'

ORDER

This matter came before the Court upon the filing of a Petition for Disciplinary or

Remedial Action, with attached certified copy of an Order entered May 16, 2OIT,whereby

the Supreme Court ofAppeals of West Virginia annulled the license to practice law in West

Virginia of JeffA. Godfrey, a member of this Court's Bar. By this Court's Order dated

October 31,2017, Mr. Godfrey was suspended from practicing law in Maryland, effective

immediately, pursuant to Maryland Rule L9-737(d), pending further order of the Court.

Having now considered Bar Counsel's response to this Court's Show Cause Order dated

February 8,2018, and it appearing that Mr. Godfrey has failed to respond to the Show

Cause Order, it is this day of ,2019,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that Jeff A. Godfrey,

Respondent, is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it

is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall issue notice of this final disposition in

accordance with Maryland Rule l9-761(b).
#### GIST v. STATE.

No. 26935.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 14, 1954.

Joe Carroll, Ross Tarrant, Temple, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

On October 29, 1951, appellant, upon his plea of guilty,,was convicted in the District Court of Bell' 'County of the felony offense of assault with intent to murder, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

Sentence was not, at that time, pronounced under the judgment. The imposition of sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed upon probation under the conditions stated in the order of probation.

On November 20, 1953, the state filed a motion to revoke the probation, alleging a violation by appellant of the conditions of probation. This motion was set by the judge of said court for hearing “instanter” on the day it was filed, and appellant’s arrest ordered.

•On November 25, 1953, five days thereafter, -the motion to revoke probation was called for hearing by a judge of another judicial district who had been assigned to preside in the case.

After hearing, the order suspending the imposition of sentence was set aside, the probation revoked, and sentence duly imposed.

*836From such order of revocation, notice of appeal was given to this court.

If we correctly understand appellant’s contention here, it is that the trial court did' not grant him sufficient time within which to answer and prepare for the hearing on the state’s motion to revoke the probation.

The grounds set forth to warrant postponement of the hearing are, of necessity, equitable in nature, because no statutory authority exists relative thereto. It must be remembered that the hearing on the motion to revoke was not a “trial” as that term is applied to criminal cases. Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774; Lynch v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 263 S.W.2d 158. Moreover, we have held (in McDaniel v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 254 S.W. 2d 785) that a proceeding to revoke probation does not require any particular time for the giving of notice to the probationer.

We are unable to reach the conclusion that the trial court abused his discretion when revoking the probation.

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### SCHICK v. SCHICK.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 8, 1951.

Robert Hubbard, Louisville, for appellant.

No attorney listed of record for appellee.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

In the petition for a declaratory judgment, the plaintiff, Martha Jewell Schick, alleged that the defendant, August William Schick, had sued her for divorce on .the ground of cruel treatment as defined in KRS 403.020(4) (d). She further alleged that the proof taken showed that he had provoked her mistreatment and he was at fault. The divorce action is still pending. The controversy sought to be adjudicated here was the proper construction of that section of the statute. August had contended that regardless of provocation or fault, he was entitled to the divorce by proving her cruel treatment. Martha contends he is not entitled to a divorce because of her proof of provocation and fault on his part. There was no response by the defendant to this suit. The court declared that the statute should be construed as authorizing a divorce regardless of the other party’s provocation or fault. The plaintiff appeals and asks this court to construe the statute to the contrary. The defendant has made no response.

 We think the court should have declined to render the declaratory judgment and dismissed the petition. The declaratory judgment act cannot be invoked to determine an issue presented in another pending suit. Bringardner Lumber Co. v. Knuckles, 253 Ky. 292, 69 S.W.2d 345, and other cases so- construing Sec. 639a-l et seq., Civil Code of Practice.

The judgment is accordingly reversed with directions to set it aside;
Description of Executive Life Insurance Benefit



 Exhibit 10.41 
  
 Description of Executive Retiree Life Insurance Benefit 
 for Corporate Officers 
  
 Officers who retire on or after attainment of age 55 with at least ten years of service with the company are eligible for company paid retiree life insurance. The amount of the life insurance benefit is equal to one times Annual Earnings.
Annual Earnings is defined as the individual’s base salary at retirement, plus the average of the individual’s last three payments under the annual incentive program or, if higher, the average of any earlier three year average of annual
incentive payouts. 
  
 All group life insurance coverage is subject to IRS
regulations under which the company provided life insurance in excess of $50,000 will be multiplied by a factor related to the individual’s age, furnished by the IRS, to arrive at the imputed income that the participant realizes from the life
insurance benefit. The imputed income is added to the participant’s taxable earnings. The participant may avoid the imputed income by electing to have the life insurance coverage limited to $50,000 (or any subsequent limit imposed by the IRS).