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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5197 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5197

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on polytetramethylene ether 
                                glycol.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To extend the temporary suspension of duty on polytetramethylene ether 
                                glycol.

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

SECTION 1. POLYTETRAMETHYLENE ETHER GLYCOL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.98 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to polytetramethylene ether 
glycol) 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 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 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>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-340-000]

On June 15, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company (Kock Gateway) filed in compliance with Order No. 637. A technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Koch's filing was held on Wednesday, September 20, 2000.

Take notice that a second technical conference to discuss the issue of segmentation on Kock's system will be held Wednesday, October 25, 2000, at 9:00 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26289 Filed 10-12-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 35.1



Annual Servicer Compliance Certificate

pursuant to

Section 3.9 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement

and

Item 1123 of Regulation AB










USAA AUTO
OWNER TRUST 2014-1





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of USAA Federal Savings
Bank, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February
28, 2014 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing
Agreement”), by and among USAA Auto Owner Trust 2014-1, USAA Acceptance, LLC, the Servicer and U.S. Bank National Association,
as Indenture Trustee, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the
    Servicer during the period from February 28, 2014 through December 31, 2014, and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing
    Agreement was conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review,
    the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Sale and Servicing Agreement throughout
    such period.                    







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate
on behalf of the Servicer this 30th day of March, 2015.



| | /s/ Usama F. Ashraf               | 
| | --------------------------------- | 
| | Name:  Usama F. Ashraf            | 
| | Title:  Vice President, Treasurer |
#### VDR Realty Corp. et al., Appellants, v Kenneth Mintz, Individually and as a Partner in Gutman, Mintz and Baker, et al., Respondents.

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Factual allegations of the *987complaint to the effect that defendant attorney unreasonably delayed the prosecution of a landlord-tenant holdover proceeding and engaged in dilatory tactics, thereby increasing the attorney’s fee and causing other consequential damages, state a cause of action for legal malpractice *(see, Wolstencroft v Sassower,*124 AD2d 582; 2 Hallen and Smith, Legal Malpractice § 24.15 [3d ed]; Note, *Liability of an Attorney in the Conduct of Litigation,*12 Syracuse L Rev 494, 497 [1961]). Plaintiff VDR Realty Corp. may recover damages even though it was successful in the underlying action *(see, Wolstencroft v Sassower, supra; Skinner v Stone, Raskin & Israel,*724 F2d 264; 76 NY Jur 2d, Malpractice, § 44). Accordingly, we modify the order by denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

No issue was raised in the brief or reply brief regarding the court’s imposition of a sanction for a frivolous cross motion for leave to enter a default judgment. That issue was, therefore, waived and is not properly before the court *(see, Velte v Jainew Enters.,*122 AD2d 544). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Kings County, Held, J.—dismiss complaint.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Life Sciences, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph P. Hernon, Chief Financial 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/    JOSEPH P. HERNONJoseph P. Hernon Chief Financial Officer and Secretary




Date: May 16, 2005
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 04771**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  04771\04771_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 04771\04771_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04771\04771_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 04771\04771_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

04771\Certification Statement Plant ID 04771.pdf Plant certification statement x 04771\Supplemental Documents\04771_A5-2 Aerial Map_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04771\Supplemental Documents\04771_A5-3 Water Balance_CBI.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 04771\04771_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

04771\04771_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 04771\Supplemental Documents\04771_ICR CoverLetter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
#### BROCK v. STATE.

No. 24733.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the unlawful possession for the purpose of sale of an alcoholic beverage, in a dry area. The jury found him guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $500.00 and 30 days in the county jail.

The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings appear regular and no question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
---

Exhibit 4.185








September 24, 2010Mr, Paul WilsonPresident and CEOIceland America Energy, Inc.707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4500Los Angeles, California 90017




|Re: | Letter Amendment to Lease Assignment Agreement dated as of September 10, 2010
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Paul:

Reference is made to that certain Lease Assignment Agreement by and between Iceland America Energy, Inc. and ORNI 5, LLC dated September 10, 2010 (the "Agreement"). Pursuant to this letter, the parties wish to amend the Agreement as follows:

1.

   The amount referred to Section 1.2.1(i) is amended to read "up to One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000)." An additional sentence is added to the Section which states:


"By way of example, in the event IAE is successful in negotiating the replacement of only one of the two current $25,000 cash bonds for the Philli[ps Well as may be required pursuant to Section 6.1, the amount due pursuant to Section 1.2.1(i), will only be increased by $25,000 making the total due ORNI 5, LLC $75,000. If IAE is required to post the two $25,000 bonds, then the amount due ORNI 5, LLC will be $100,000.”

2.

   Section 6.1 is amended to add the following sentences at the end of the Section:


"ORNI 5, LLC agrees to reimburse IAE up to a maximum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) in the event IAE is required to replace ORNI 5, LLC's existing $25,000 Individual High Temperature Well Cash Bond with Imperial County and the $25,000 Individual Geothermal Resources Well Cash Bond with the State of California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources."

3.

   Section 2.1 of the Royalty Agreement, attached to the Agreement as Exhibit "K", is amended to change the royalty rate in Section 2.1(a) from one percent (1%) to one half percent (0.5%) and the royalty rate in Section 2.1 (b) from one and one half percent (11⁄2) to three quarters of one percent (0.75).4.

   All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


---

If you in agreement with the above, please date and sign in the space provided below and return an executed copy to me. Sincerely,  /s/ William R. Sherman William R. ShermanLand Department/Manager Agreed and accepted by Iceland America Energy, Inc. this 28thday of September, 2010.  /s/ Paul Wilson Paul WilsonPresident and CEO  ORMAT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.6225 Neil Road • Reno, NV 89511-1136 • Phone: (775) 356-9029  • Fax: (775) 356-9039 • E-mail: ormat@ormat.com • Website: http://www.ormat.com


---
Exhibit 32 Section 1350
Certifications.

---

# Exhibit 32

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tidelands Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
          filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | By:   /s/  Robert E. Coffee, Jr.              
| |  | ----------------------------------------------
| |  | Robert E. Coffee, Jr.                         
| |  | Chief Executive Officer         March 19, 2007

| |  | By:   /s/  Alan W. Jackson                    
| |  | ----------------------------------------------
| |  | Alan W. Jackson                               
| |  | Chief Financial Officer         March 19, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Pollex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seong Yong Cho, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: March 31, 2011
/s/ Seong Yong ChoBy: Seong Yong ChoIts: President

(Principal Executive Officer)





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

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORTS 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Supplemental Expert Reports. Having 

considered the parties’ briefing and arguments, the Court hereby DENIES WSOU’s motion and 

STRIKES WSOU’s February 14, 2023 supplemental expert reports. 

 Signed this ______________ day of ____________, 2023. 

 ______________________________________ 

 HON. ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 379 Filed 02/16/23 Page 1 of 1
### NUMBER 13
- 10
- 00 018
- CV


## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF

AGNES WILLEMIN MEELER

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

of Victoria County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Rodriguez , and Garza Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam
Appellant s , Barbara Hennig and William W. Matthews , perfected an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 1 of Victoria County, Texas, in cause

number GDN 1

- 119

. On February 4, 2010, this Court abated the case to allow the parties the opportunity to engage in settlement negotiations. The case is hereby
REINSTATED. Appellant s ha ve filed a motion to dismiss the appeal , with prejudice. Appellant s request that this Cour t dismiss the appeal.2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants ’ motion to dismiss the appeal , with prejudice , is of the opinion that the motion should be granted.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Appellants ’ motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE

. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed t he appeal at appellants = request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 22nd day of April , 20 10

.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00321-CR

Tyler James Layton

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR13017)

February 25, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Exhibit ‘J’

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 110-10 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 2
D 000055
**EXHIBIT 15**

July 31, 2002

Board of DirectorsSuperior Uniform Group, Inc.Seminole,Florida

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial information of Superior Uniform Group, Inc.and subsidiary for the periods ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, as indicated in our report dated July 25, 2002; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We areaware that our report referred to above, which is included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, is incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 2-85796 on Form S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a reportprepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

|                                                                                |   |               |        |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|
| /s/ Deloitte & Touche, LLP                                                 |   |     |   |
|   Certified Public AccountantsTampa, Florida     |
#### Ex parte MAYO.

No. 23223.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1945.

*753W. E. Martin, of Abilene, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant had been confined in jail in default of giving a peace bond. This proceeding was instituted before the district court for the purpose of securing his release. The judge held against him, hence the appeal.

It appears from the statement of facts in the case, and particularly from the evidence of the complaining party, that there no longer existed any need for imposing this burden on appellant, if in fact any had ever existed. We think the district judge should have granted his application. Ex parte Wilkinson, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 336, 278 S.W. 426.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and relator is ordered discharged.
1

Filed 5/3/23 P. v. Johnson CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JASON WIBERT JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

C097040

(Super. Ct. No. 04F03055)

Defendant Jason Wibert Johnson appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for 

resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Counsel filed a brief raising no arguable 

issues under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and requesting we 

exercise our discretion to review the entire record for arguable issues on appeal. 

1

 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered former section 1170.95 to section 

1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive changes to the statute. 

Defendant filed his petition under former section 1170.95, but we will cite to the current 

section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.
2

On January 18, 2023, we notified defendant: 1) counsel had filed a brief 

indicating no arguable issues had been identified by counsel; 2) as a case arising from an 

order denying postconviction relief, defendant was not entitled to counsel or to an 

independent review of the record; and 3) in accordance with the procedures set forth in 

Delgadillo, defendant had 30 days in which to file a supplemental brief or letter raising 

any argument he wanted this court to consider. In addition, we notified defendant if we 

did not receive a letter or brief within that 30-day period, the court may dismiss the 

appeal as abandoned. More than 30 days have elapsed and we have received no 

communication from defendant.

We consider defendant’s appeal abandoned and order the appeal dismissed. 

(Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

 

HULL, J.

We concur:

 

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 

EARL, J.
Docket No. FAA-:tO I t - 003 2.

Regulatory Evaluation

;;0 IO-Nk/-.2 3b-Aj)

Directorate Identifier: -AD

Estimated Costs:

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

Action propeller, appliance)

(e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost

replacement) (include COSI (labor + U.S. for u.s. Fleet

access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered

and close-up) our) Products

Install a new coilcord assembly on

the Captain's and 5.5 • 44{i.CC $1,608 fl.778.00 687 $ 0

First Officer's #2

windows in the

flight compartment.

1608'687 ,', 1).(111 } Of; $ 0

'\ (, Ili) I

, ,~I $ 0

'~'jLII , 1.11)(1 $ 0

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of campi iance for U.S. fleet: !G8 Is Not

In

Table182327

Costs covered under warranty $

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to e:l(plain anything in the Estimated Costs lable

that was assumed or mighl nol be obvious. Thisfield can also be used 10 explain warranly costs):

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? ~

YES' 0 NO[8J

*Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? ~

YES' 0 NO [8J

*Explanation:

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for

either a Yes or No answer. i~'

YES 0 NO [8J

Explanation:
Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode ofrransportation? ._.

YES' 0 NO [8J

*Explanation: