alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OMB Control No. 2060 - 0347

OMB No. 2060 - 0528 

### STATEMENT OF ENERGY PERFORMANCE Enter Name For 12 - mo nth period ending: Enter Month/Day/Year
**Facility A ddress**  **Owner's A ddress**  **Corporate Energy Manager Contact** Enter Name Owner's Name Contact Name Street Address Street Address Em ail Address Address 2 Address 2 Phone Number New York, NY Cit y, State 10000 ZIP **Au tomobile A** **ssembly Plant Energy Performance Indicator**  Energy Performance Score: 

### 100 GHG Savings (Kg CO 2 e) 165 Energy Savings (MMBtu) 3 **Professional Verification** Professional Engineer Name Address Address 2 Cit y, State ZIP Phone Number: License Number: Licensing State: Professional Engineer Stamp **EPI Verification** Based on the conditions observed at the time of my visit to this facility, I certify that the information used in this tool to generate the energy pe rformance score represented on this statement is accurate.
**NOTE:** 1. Applications for certification of plant energy performance to the US EPA must be made within 4 months of Period Ending date. Award of the ENERGY STAR is not final until approved by the US EPA. 

### EPI attached for E PA review

. 

### EPIcontains proprietary i nform ation and has been sent to the designated rev iew er.OMB Control No. 2060 - 0347

2. All energy performance scores and supporting data must first be verified by the US EPA or a US EPA designated EPI reviewer if supporting data is considered to be proprietary before submitting applications for the ENERGY STAR. 3. An energy performance score of 75 is the minimum required score to be considered eligible for the ENERGY STAR.

4. Estima tes of energy and CO 2 emissions savings are provided to illustrate the difference between the benchmarked plant's energy use and estimated CO 2 emissions as compared to "an average plant" that is defined as having an energy performance score at the 50th percentile. The fuel mix used to estimate emissions data for the average plant is the same as for the benchmarked plant. These estimates are provided to assist plants with communicating their energy and environmental achievements. Fo r US EPA Use Only:

The public reporting burden for this collection of informati o n is estimated to range up to 15 minutes per response. Send comm ents on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested me thods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies D ivision, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address. EPA Form 5900 - 89
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 18-0621

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JAY DONALD WITKOWSKI,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 29, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 17 2020

04/17/2020

Case Number: DA 18-0621
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsRodman & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report included herein    dated March 11, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Rodman    & Renshaw Capital Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and the related consolidated    statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive  income and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2008. Our report refers  to a change in the method of accounting for fair value measurements.

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

New York, New YorkMarch 11, 2009

 

 

----
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 22684.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 26, 1944.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1944.

H. S. Beard, of Waco, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

.The opinion heretofore rendered in this cause is withdrawn, and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:

The conviction is for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, one year in jail.

The purchaser named in the information testified that appellant sold him a pint of whisky, in Coryell County, for which he paid $3. It was agreed that said county was a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act. Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq. The facts authorized the jury’s conclusion of guilt.

Appellant’s motion for a continuance was overruled, of which action he complains in his brief. However, no bill of exception presenting the question appears. It is the rule of long standing that, in order for the action of the trial court in overruling a motion for a continuance to be reviewable by this court, same must be presented by a bill of exception. Authorities supporting the rule are numerous and will be found collated in 13 Texas Digest, Criminal Law, p. 456,

PER 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.
### Uu*i^ (W^noi) GjiMclr- ^w ^S'7?-/d /(



### Reg CW1U)8 D-oa8(,i-ar-t37^//3)Q%Q3(W%/ (J^iho. c99^r/3-(0. CCA .• ©kv W\OAcik cP^JiJ, JOlS OJVui Jhcu/t.Jlwn J^l- 6J^ugru2^/ hsu\M> (J

00 tlaW^
RECEIVED IN COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS APR 10 2015 Ab@IAcosia,ClerK
IINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-028-01-H

NICHOLAS AGUILAR,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING B.EPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNTTED STATES MAGISTRATE JIJDGE

CONCER}IING PLEA OF GIJILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance wittt 28 U.S'C.

$ 636OX1), the undersigrred District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated September 2022. 7+u t,

JAMES SLEYHENDRIX

UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:22-cr-00028-H-BQ Document 26 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 46
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00384-CV

In the Matter of R.L. 

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. J-16242, HONORABLE W. JEANNE MEURER, JUDGE PRESIDING 

On April 18, 2001, the State filed a motion to modify disposition alleging that R.L.

violated the terms of his probation. On May 23, the court held a hearing on the State’s modification

motion and ruled that R.L. violated the terms of his probation and engaged in delinquent conduct.

The court conducted a disposition hearing and committed R.L. to the Texas Youth Commission.

R.L. appealed. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 56.01 (c)(1)(C) (West Supp. 2002). 

R.L.’s appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief asserting that the appeal is frivolous.

The brief complies with the requirements for such briefs discussed in In re D.A.S., 973 S.W.2d 296

(Tex. 1998); and more generally, in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that

he has diligently examined the record and researched the law applicable to the facts and issues in the

case. Counsel’s brief contains a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are

no meritorious errors to be advanced. A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to R.L. and to his

guardian, and they were advised of their right to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se

brief. A pro se brief was not filed. We have independently reviewed the record and agree with

counsel that the appeal is frivolous. 
2

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw from the case and affirm the juvenile court’s

order modifying the probation judgment of delinquency and the court’s order modifying the probation

disposition to a disposition of commitment to the Texas Youth Commission.

 

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson, and Puryear

Affirmed

Filed: April 11, 2002

Do Not Publish
#### SHIRLEY v. STATE.

No. 25502.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 21, *1951.*

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $250'.00.

Two officers of the Department of Public Safety testified that they arrested appellant on the day charged in the information, that they smelled alcohol on his breath, that he staggered, and that he was intoxicated. Appellant offered a number of character witnesses who testified as to his general reputation as being a peaceable and law-abiding citizen. Appellant testified in his own behalf, admitted that he had drunk several bottles of beer during the day, denied that he was intoxicated, and explained his staggering by testimony of an old injury to his leg.

The jury found against appellant’s contention that he was not intoxicated.

There are no bills of exception in the record.

Finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Delton Carl BERNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23552.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 27, 1946.

No appearance, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property of more than $50 in value, punishment assessed being five years in the penitentiary.

By his personal affidavit appellant advises this court that he desires to prosecute his appeal no further, and at his request the same is dismissed.
*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
*Inert ingredient information may be entitled to confidential treatment*
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
1350








In
connection with the Annual Report of Surge Global Energy, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and to which this Certification is an exhibit
(the “Report”), the undersigned officer of the Company does hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18
U.S.C. 1350):





(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 conditionand results of operations of the Company.





Date:
April 15, 2009


/s/ E.
JAMIE
SCHLOSS


E. Jamie
Schloss


Chief
Executive Officer


and Chief
Financial Officer
OCTOBER TERM, 1739.

#### Kenelm Cheseldine’s Lessee *against*Thomas Brewer.

*Daniel Dulany*and *Edmund*Jenings, attorneys for plaintiff. «

*William Gumming*and *I.*Mercer, for defendant;

THIS was an ejectment for a tract of land called *Mattapany.*

At the Assises held for *Saint Mary’s*County, at the trial of the cause, the plaintiff, to prove that he was the legitimate son and heir of *Kenelm*Cheseldine, his reputed father, and through whom he claimed title to the land in question as his heir at law, offered evidence, that *Kenelm Cheseldine*cohabited with *Mary*Sheppard, the mother of the plaintiff, from the year 1712 to the time of his death, which happened in the year 1717; and that during that time the said *Kenelm*and *Mary*had often declared that he was married to the said Mary, and he that she was his lawful wife, and that he used to treat her as his wife, except at some particular times, when intoxicated or in a passion; that the plaintiff was born in the year 1712, some time after the cohabitation had commenced, and that the said *Kenelm*owned him for his son.

The defendant prayed the Justices to declare to the Jury, that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the lessor of the plaintiff to be the legitimate son of *Kenelm, Chesel*dine, his supposed ¡father, as no actual marriage was proved. But the Justices directed the Jury, that if they found the said *Kenelm*and *Mary*had consented and agreed to be man and wife, and had cohabited and copulated as such before the birth of the lessor of the plaintiff, that they should render their verdict for the plaintiff. To this direction of the Court the defendant excepted. And this Court affirmed the judgment.

Lib. E. J. No. 6. fol. *S3.*
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00155-CR

Marvin Eugene Hudgins a/k/a Marvin 

Eugene Huggins

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 1

of Tarrant County (1204601D)

July 16, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(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/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MAURIE MOORE §

§

VS. § ACTION NO. 4:22-CV-201-Y

§

CARVANA, LLC. §

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Pending before the Court is the parties' Joint Motion to Amend

Scheduling Order (doc. 18).1 After review of the motion, the Court

concludes that it should be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. 

Accordingly, the Initial Scheduling Order previously issued in this

case is AMENDED as follows:

(1) The parties must participate in a formal settlement

conference at a mutually agreeable date, time, and location no

later than March 31, 2023;

(7) The parties shall cease all discovery activity under the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure no later than March 17, 2023; and

(8) The parties must file all pretrial and dispositive

motions, except motions in limine, no later than April 17, 2023.

SIGNED December 22, 2022.

____________________________

TERRY R. MEANS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

The Court did not receive an electronic proposed order with

the motion (emailed to means_orders@txnd.uscourts.gov upon filing

of the motion). Counsel are reminded that all motions require an

electronic proposed order and that providing one generally

expedites the Court's consideration of the motion to which the

order pertains. See N.D. TEX. L. CIV. R. 7.1(c); ECF Admin.

Procedures Manual at 3, ¶ II(F).

Case 4:22-cv-00201-Y Document 19 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 75
#### STOCKWELL v. STATE.

No. 24969.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 15, 1950.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Th record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for the consideration of this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

May 25, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00227

- CV

Kevin HEADY

, Appellant

v.

Julieta HEADY

, Appellee

From the 365th Judicial District Court

, Maveri ck County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 06

- 37527

- MCVAJA Honorable Amado J. Abascal, III , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record was due on May 19, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1 (c)

. Before the due date, c ourt reporter Patricia Salinas advised this court that Appellant has n either requested the reporter’s record nor paid for the recording of the hearing to be transcribed

.
We order Appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that (1) the reporter’s record has been requested and arrangements hav e been made to pay the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee.

If Appellant fail s to respond within the time provided, Appellant must file a brief with
this court within thirty days after the clerk’s reco rd is filed , a nd the court will only “consider and decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant ’ s brief] that do not require a reporter’s record
for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).

If Appellant timely compl ies with this order, the reporter’s record will be due thirty days
after Appellant file s written proof showing compliance with this order. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension of time to file the record in a regular appeal to thirty days).

_________________________________ P atricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 25th day of May, 2022

.

________________________________ _ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

As
adopted pursuant to
SECTION 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Audax Credit
BDC Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2017 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard T. Joseph, as 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 to my knowledge:



(1)       The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Richard T. Joseph
|---------------------
|Name:                
|Title:               



Date: March 16, 2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2189

DAYYAN ATTA BEY EX REL DERICK SEALEY, an individual,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAELA BASS, an individual,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:15-cv-00091-MSD-LRL)

Submitted: March 29, 2016 Decided: March 31, 2016

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dayyan Atta Bey ex rel Derick Sealey, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dayyan Atta Bey appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012). 

In his complaint, Bey sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012), and other causes of action. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Bey v. Bass, No. 4:15-cv00091-MSD-LRL (E.D. Va. Sept. 8, 2015). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### BOONE v. STATE.

No. 24997.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 24, 1951.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Under an indictment charging assault with intent to murder, appellant was convicted of assault to murder without malice, and his punishment assessed at eighteen months’ confinement in the penitentiary. No ¡bills of exception or statement of facts accompany the record.

The trial court failed to apply the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Art. 775, C.C. P., Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 775. Accordingly, the sentence is reformed so as to fix appellant’s punishment at not less than one year nor more than eighteen months in the penitentiary.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
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 Western Power & Equipment Corp. &
Subsidiary (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Mark J. Wright, 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 to the best of my 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.




                                       /s/ Mark J. Wright
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Name: Mark J. Wright
                                       Chief Financial Officer and Principal
                                       Accounting Officer
                                       Date: June 14, 2006



     A signed original of the written statements required by Section 906 has
been provided to Western Power & Equipment Corp. & Subsidiary and will be
retained by Western Power & Equipment Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Order entered October 6, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00497-CR

HECTOR RIVAS-MACIAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 064769

ORDER

Appellant was convicted of indecency with a child. Appellant’s brief identifies the 

complaining witness by her full name. Accordingly, we STRIKE the appellant’s brief filed on 

September 30, 2015. We ORDER appellant to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, 

amended briefs that identify the complaining witness by initials only.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE