alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission
 Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.72(j) “Public notice of receipt of an application”, please be advised that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received an application to amend import license IW008 as set forth below. Copies of the 
                    ( print page 65337)
                    amendment application are available electronically through ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
                    *<http://www.nrc.gov/​NRC/​ADAMS/​index.html>*
                     at the NRC Homepage. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene should be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                    , if possible. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. The information concerning the amendment application follows. NRC Import License Amendment Application
Name of applicant; Date of application; Date received; Application No.
Description of material
Country of originMaterial type
Total qty
End useStarmet CMI; September 28, 2000; October 4, 2000; IW008/01
Depleted uranium swart/turnings; DU solid cylindrical pieces and
Increase from 80,000 kgs to 250,000 kgs DU
DU will be recycled
United Kingdom.Contaminated mineral oil
Increase from 45,000 liters to 240,000 liters mineral oil
Oil will be processed and reused
United Kingdom.
 Dated this 25th day of October 2000 at Rockville, Maryland. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Ronald D. Hauber, Deputy Director, Office of International Programs.


[FR Doc. 00-28033 Filed 10-31-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### VAN PELT et ux. v. McCABE et al.

No. 12216.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 7, 1951.

L. W. Pollard, Kerrville, for appellants.

Speert & Pena, San Antonio, for appel-lees.

POPE, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order overruling appellants’ plea of privilege to be sued in Kerr County, but it concerns the application of Rule 419, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appellants complain by proper points, (1) that the trial court erred because the plaintiffs’ controverting affidavit did not refer to nor incorporate the plaintiffs’ petition, nor did it allege facts sufficient to assert a cause of action based on a written contract, (2) that this failure to refer to or incorporate the petition resulted in a controverting plea which failed even to designate the plaintiffs by name, (3) that this failure also resulted in an empty verification of pleadings which contained no fact allegations, (4) that the evidence introduced over objection established material alterations of *686a written contract made without appellants’ consent or authority, (5) that the court improperly admitted evidence as to the execution and delivery of the contract because there were no pleadings to support such testimony, and (6) because the contract was not performable in Bexar County. Appellants’ brief contains statements pertaining to the support of these points which are unchallenged by appellees who have not favored us with a brief. We accept those statements as correct, without resort to the statement of facts or the record. Rule 419, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; Donnelly v. Donnelly, Tex.Civ.App., 220 S.W.2d 278; City of Caldwell v. Schumacher, Tex.Civ.App., 204 S.W.2d 471, reversed on other grounds, 146 Tex. 265, 206 S.W.2d 243; White v. Adams, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W.2d 623; Headstream v. Mangum, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 496.

The order overruling the plea of privilege is reversed and the cause is ordered transferred to Kerr County.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS
PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q.

</LEGEND>                            
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         23,198
<SECURITIES>                                   12,615
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               37,156
<PP&E>                                         282
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 40,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,861
<BONDS>                                        103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                     37,535
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   40,538
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,329
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,018
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.14
        


</TABLE>
* 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. 01-10867

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN JOSE LUNA-PINA, 

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:00-CR-290-1-Y 

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Jose Luna-Pina appeals his guilty plea conviction of

being found in the United States after deportation in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that his guilty plea was rendered

involuntary by the district court’s failure to advise him during

the plea colloquy that a prior aggravated felony conviction is an

element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) which the

Government would have to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable

doubt. Luna-Pina acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United
No. 01-10867 

-2-

States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but seeks to preserve the issue for

Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New

Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Luna-Pina’s

argument is foreclosed. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3394 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3394

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the work opportunity 
                         tax credit permanent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 30, 2013

  Ms. Brownley of California introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the work opportunity 
                         tax credit permanent.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``American Job Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 51(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking paragraph (4).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to wages paid after December 31, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
#### Christoval STEWART, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23667.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 19, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for murder; punishment assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for ten years.

By proper affidavit filed by appellant this court is advised that he no longer desires to prosecute the appeal and asks that same be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed at request of appellant.
EXHIBIT 32.2 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, the undersigned officer of Getty Realty Corp. (the Company) hereby
certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i)
the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated: March
16, 2010

|                                                       |                          | 
|------------------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ | 
|By:                                                    | /s/ THOMAS
 J. STIRNWEIS | 
|                                                       |                          | 
|Thomas J.
 Stirnweis                                   |                         
|Vice
 President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

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

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to
be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.

---
#### FLORES v. STATE.

No. 26852.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1954.

*953':''-Ma'nh Byfield, by George D. .Byfield, •Laredo, for appellant.

William C. Wright, Bismark Pope, Sp. ■Prosecutors, Laredo, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is unlawfully engaging in a riot in violation of Article 457, P.C.; the punishment, twenty-four hours in jail and a fine of $400.

By motion in' arrest of judgment, appellant challenged the sufficiency of the information in that the same Was not signed by the District or County Attorney as required by Section 9 of Article 414, CC.P. The information was signed “William ' C.Wright, Special Prosecuting Attorney for Zapata County, Texas.” Our statutes do not create any such officé. This information does not allege, nor does the proof show; by virtue of what authority the said Wright was purporting to act for the State of' Texas in this prosecution.

In the relatively recent case of Hill v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 299, 207 S.W.2d. 413, we had before us an information which. purported to be the act of Ben Davis Geel-sin, Attorney of the County of McCulloch. We reversed the conviction, saying that the information did not purport to be the act of either officer mentioned in Article 414, supra. - ■

• The appellee says that we should take ■judicial knowledge of the fact that Zapata • County has no county attorney and that so doing would make Article 29, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., applicable, which authorizes prosecution by complaint only in counties ■ having no county attorney. Were this a question of first impression, we might consider the same. However, in Day v. State, 127 Tex.Cr.R. 19, 74 S.W.2d 699, 700, We held that this Court had no “means of knowing what counties, if any there be in Texas, have no county attorney”. The bill of exception raising this matter contained no qualification by the court certifying tfiat, •in fact, Zapatá County was without a county attorney. This was the opportunity afforded the court to advise us that the prosecution was under the exception . named iii Article 29, supra.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. ■:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JULISSA GAMEZ OCHOA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

'

' No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 045

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court No. 1

O f El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20150D02050 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the State ’s third motion for extension of time to file the brief until

February 8

, 201 7

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE

STATE ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Jaime Esparza , the State ’s Attorney, prepare the

State ’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before February 8 , 201 7

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28 th day of December , 201 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
ZHEJIANG MEDICINE CO ., LTD., ZMC

- USA L.L .C., Plaintiffs

- Cross

- Appellants

v.
KANEKA CORPORATION, Defendant

- Appellant

______________________

2018

- 1618, 2018

- 1662

______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in No. 4:11

- cv

- 01052, Judge Vanes sa D. Gilmore.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
P AUL W HITFIELD H UGHES , Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiffs

- cross

- appellants. Also represented by G ARY H NATH , B RYAN N ESE ; B RIAN R OSENTHAL , Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY.

K EITH D. N OWAK , Carter Ledyard & Milburn LLP, New York, NY, argued for defendant

- appellant. Also represented by G ERALD W. G RIFFIN , W ILLIAM F. S ONDERICKER ;R OBERT M C G EE B OWICK , J R

. , Raley & Bowick, LL P, Houston, TX.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R EYNA , B RYSON , and S TOLL , Circuit Judges ).
AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

May 13, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

 

I, S. Gene Thompson, Chief Financial Officerof Gasel Transportation Lines, Inc. (the “Registrant”), do hereby certify inaccordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

 

1.           TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the period ended March31, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and

 

2.           Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 
| Dated: May 19, 2003 | By:                                                             | /s/  S. Gene Thompson |   |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
|                | S. Gene Thompson, Vice  President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*MARCELLUS RUFFIN

*Elizabeth A. Gallagher,*in support of the petition.

*Denise B. Smoker,*assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided June 17, 1998

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 504 (AC 15068), is denied.

CALLAHAN, C. J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXHIBIT 31.01



I, Timothy Neher, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Wherify Wireless, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report 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 with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; and

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) Designed such disclosure  controls and procedures,  or caused such disclosure
controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to ensure that
material  information  relating  to the small  business  issuer,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of the  small  business  issuer's  disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our  conclusions  about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation.

c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business  issuer's  internal
control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small  business
issuer's  fourth fiscal quarter that has materially  affected,  or is reasonably
likely to materially  affect,  the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date:  October 13, 2005

                                         /s/ Timothy Neher
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Timothy Neher
                                         Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2



ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.



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



In connection with this annual report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Schall,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United State Code, that to the best
of my knowledge:

(1) 	the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 15(d),
as applicable, 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 at the dates and for
the periods indicated.



Date: March 12, 2004

/s/ Michael J. SchallMichael J. Schall
Chief Financial Officer

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 8, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00131

- CV

Lorraine KENYON , Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon

, Appellant

v.

ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC

,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI14055 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appell ee ’s unopposed motion for extension of time to file a response to appellant’s

motion for reconsideration en banc is GRANTED. Appellee’s response is due no later than August 23, 2019.

_________________________________ Sande e Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 8th day of August, 2019

.

____________________________ _______ K eith E. H ottle

, Clerk of Court
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3375 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2014 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to be constructed at 

3141 Centennial Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado, 

as the ‘‘PFC Floyd K. Lindstrom Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

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


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3375 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. PFC FLOYD K. LINDSTROM DEPARTMENT OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The community-based outpatient 

4 clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs to be con5 structed at 3141 Centennial Boulevard, Colorado Springs, 

6 Colorado, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘PFC 

7 Floyd K. Lindstrom Department of Veterans Affairs Clin8 ic’’. 

9 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, regula10 tion, map, document, paper, or other record of the United 

11 States to the building referred to in subsection (a) shall 

12 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘PFC Floyd K. 

13 Lindstrom Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 17, 2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS