alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
  13.1



---





CertificationPursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a)
  and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to section 906
  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
  chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers
  of United Utilities PLC, an English public limited company (the Company),
  does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:The Annual Report on Form
  20-F for the year ended March 31, 2005 (the Form 20-F) of the Company
  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
  Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents,
  in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
  of the Company.

|Dated: | December
        9,
        2005 | /s/
      John Roberts
|------ | -------------------------------- | ----------------------
|       |                                  | John Edward Roberts   
|       |                                  | Chief Executive       
|       |                                  |                       
|       |                                  |                       
|       |                                  |                       
|Dated: | December 9, 2005                 | /s/ Simon Batey       
|       |                                  | Simon George Batey    
|       |                                  | Group Finance Director
|       |                                  |                       



---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.13


                       RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: OSWEGO

$62,299,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, OSWEGO HARBOR POWER LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order
of NRG NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its
successors and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United
States in immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at
1221 Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of
SIXTY-TWO MILLION TWO HUNDRED NINETY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($62,299,000) or, if
less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding
hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to eight and three tenths percent (8.3%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            OSWEGO HARBOR POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 160 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res. 160
                                      Agreed to October 18, 1993        
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 3123, to improve the electric 
and telephone loan programs carried out under the Rural Electrification 
Act of 1936, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House shall make 
the following correction:
        On page 4, line 16, of the House engrossed bill, strike 
    ``urban'' and insert ``urbanized''.
Attest:







                                  Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:







                                                Secretary of the Senate.`
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO13563 and 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

Interagency Comments on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s draft final rulemaking, “Regulation 

of Fuels and Fuel Additives: 2013 Renewable Fuel Standards,” RIN 2060-AR43

1. The language that EPA has included regarding its intentions with respect to the 2014 RFS 

program year appear in several important respects may confuse the intended market signal. 

Because of the linkage across program years via RIN Banking, confusion regarding the intentions 

being signaled for 2014 could have implications for RIN process during 2013 once the final rule is 

released. For this reason, it is critical that the text be accurate in conveying the signal that 

policymakers actually wish to convey.

a. At one point the proposed language suggests that the final rule for the 2014 RFS 

program year is unlikely to be completed before the end of June 2014, which would signal 

considerable uncertainty to anyone making compliance plans for both 2013 and 2014, given the 

linkage between program years due to RIN banking.

b. At another point, the draft discussion of problems with the 2014 statutory targets 

implies that a decision regarding the level of those targets will be based exclusively on the cap 

between maximum supply capability for advanced fuels and the statutory target. As many 

participants noted on the call, EPA’s actual statutory authority to cut advanced and total targets 

up to the amount of any cut in the cellulosic target does NOT depend on a determination 

regarding the capability to produce additional amounts of non-cellulosic advanced fuels, even 

though EPA has in previous years been using a supply-based approach in justifying its decisions 

with regard to the advanced and total targets. Rather than signaling an intent to shift away 

from this approach for setting the 2014 RFS advanced and total targets, the draft final rule 

language seems to reinforce the notion that a focus on potential maximum supply of noncellulosic advanced fuels is the appropriate criterion for setting the targets.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-17-00456-CR

____________________

DAVID A. RIGGS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 163rd District Court

Orange County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B160099-R

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On August 1, 2017, the trial court sentenced David A. Riggs to thirty years in 

prison for aggravated robbery. The trial court certified that Riggs had no right to 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Nonetheless, Riggs filed a notice of appeal 

on November 27, 2017.

The Court finds that the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Riggs also did not file a timely motion for extension of time to 

file his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. We hold that the Court has no jurisdiction 
2

over Riggs’ appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1998). We must also dismiss Riggs’ appeal because the trial court’s certification 

shows that he does not have the right to appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The

appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

 

Submitted on January 9, 2018

Opinion Delivered January 10, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP–74,980

BARNEY RONALD FULLER, JR., Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON DIRECT APPEAL FROM CAUSE NO. 04-CR-27 

IN THE 349 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT th

HOUSTON COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

CONCURRING OPINION

I disagree with the majority’s analysis regarding the admissibility and

voluntariness of Appellant’s videotaped statement. Because Appellant pleaded guilty in

front of the jury and the trial proceeded to the punishment phase, there is no need for the

court to analyze the voluntariness of his statement to police on the morning of the

shootings. He claims that he did not voluntarily waive his right to remain silent and his

right to counsel because he was drunk when the statement was taken and because he was
Fuller–Page 2

Even at the pretrial hearing on the motion to suppress the videotaped statement, Appellant did not contest the 1

the veracity of the facts he related in his confession, just his ability to knowingly waive his rights to remain silent and

to have an attorney present. 

 We note that the trial court’s permission to appeal does not apply in direct appeals such as the case before us. 2

not aware that his brother-in-law, an attorney, had sent a fax directing officers not to

interview him. However, by pleading guilty, he waived the right to challenge on appeal 1

the admission of his initial confession. His non-negotiated guilty plea was the equivalent

to him confessing to the jury. While we are always concerned with the voluntariness and

accuracy of a confession, by pleading guilty, Appellant confirmed the accuracy of his

confession and the issue of voluntariness became moot. As such, he cannot now

complain that his confession to the police was admitted for the jury to consider during the

punishment phase.

The situation would be different if there were a plea bargain agreement. If his

guilty plea was a result of a negotiation between Appellant and the State, then it would be

appropriate for us to consider the voluntariness and admissibility of his confession to

police. See Code of Criminal Procedure Article 26.13(a)(3), stating that in a plea bargain

case, if the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment agreed upon

by the State and the defendant, the defendant must get the trial court’s permission to

appeal any matters except those raised by pretrial motions. Therefore, if this were a

negotiated guilty plea, Appellant could appeal the voluntariness issue as raised in the

pretrial motion to suppress the videotape. Since this is not the case here, I think the 2

majority should simply say that, due to Appellant’s admission of guilt before the jury, he
Fuller–Page 3

waived the right to complain on appeal that his confession to police was admitted. I

concur in the decision to overrule points of error ten and eleven and otherwise join the

opinion of the majority.

Meyers, J.

Filed: April 30, 2008

Publish
( TRANSITION AGREEMENT 

This TRANSITION AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") is 

entered into between President ROBERT ROSS (hereinafter referred to as "ROSS"), and 

the ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, through its Voting Board 

of Directors and on behalf of any and al! of its officers, directors, employees, agents, 

members, and attorneys, in their official and individual capacities, together with their 

successors both jointly and severally (hereinafter collectively and individually referred to as 

"APFA"). 

WHEREAS, President ROSS and APFA, through its Voting Board of Directors, find it 

mutually beneficial and in the best interests of the membership to enter into this Transition 

Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, President ROSS has previously announced his intention not to seek reelection for APF A President, and as such the parties have agreed on the terms of this 

Agreement. 

NOW THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this 

----._ Agreement, President ROSS and APFA (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Parties"), 

\.._ intending to be legally bound, po hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 

-------.._ 

1. ROSS hereby voluntarily and irrevocably resigns from his position as the

National President of APFA effective at the close of the 2018 APFA

Convention, and agrees to announce his resignation by the close as well.

2. ROSS will have access through the close of business on March 9, 2018 to his

APFA office, files, and computer to finalize his affairs. Starting upon the

announcement of the resignation, all emails, telephonic calls, correspondence

and affairs regarding or directed to the APF A National President shall be

immediately routed to the successor APFA National President.

3. APFA agrees that ROSS will continue to receive from APFA his current full

salary and benefits, including full insurance coverage, through July 31, 2018.

4. APFA agrees to pay ROSS all of his accrued and unused sick and accrued

and unused vacation time, from April 1, 2016 through July 31, 2018.

5. APFA agrees to pay Ross, upon his request, a one-time lump sum in the total

amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), which represents ROSS's

moving expenses. ROSS shall present the moving expenses to APFA for

Page 1 of4 March 1, 2018:1.0 

Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 4 PageID 1901
Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1902
Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1903
Exhibit A

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-1 Filed 04/08/23 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1904
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11.1

 
                  OPEN ENVIRONMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY
                  Computation of Net Income (Loss) Per Share.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION> 

     
                                              Three Months Ended March 31
                                               1995              1994 (1)
                                          ----------------   ---------------
                                             (Restated)
 
<S>                                          <C>                <C>         
Weighted average shares of common stock      4,610,560          4,590,293
 outstanding
Common stock equivalents:
    Series A Convertible Preferred Shares      999,998            999,998
    Dilutive effect of stock options         1,124,282         
                                          ----------------   ---------------
                                             6,734,840          5,590,291
                                          ================   ===============
 
Net income (loss)                             $349,263           ($69,778)
                                          ================   ===============
 
Net income (loss) per share                      $0.05             ($0.01) 
                                          ================   ===============
</TABLE>    

    
(1)  Common Stock equivalents were not considered in the three months ended
     March 31, 1994 due to their dilutive effect on the Company's net loss per
     share.
#### MATTHEWS v. BUCHANAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 17, 1951.

Arthur (Watermelon) Matthews, pro se.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen. W. Owen Keller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

The judgment in the lower court, denying the petition of Arthur (Watermelon) Mat-’ thews for a writ of habeas corpus to secure, his release from the penitentiary, was entered on December 5, 1950. The appeal was filed in this Court on January 25, 1951. Under section 429-1 of the Criminal Code of. Practice, an appeal in a habeas corpus proceeding must be filed within 10 days after the entry of the judgment. This appeal was . not filpd in-, time, and the court therefore does not have jurisdiction. Board v. Hendricks, 300 Ky. 619, 189 S.W.2d. 112; Wyatt v. Goodlett, 311 Ky. 583, 227 S.W.2d 406.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 32.2
 
 CERTIFICATION
 
 The undersigned, Thomas C. Shields, Chief Operating Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ANADIGICS, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: May 10, 2011
 By:
/s/ Thomas C. ShieldsThomas C. ShieldsChief Operating Officer, Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer
 
  This certification shall not be deemed to be “filed” for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and will not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, unless specifically identified therein as being incorporated by reference.
 
 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 required by Section 906, has been provided to ANADIGICS, Inc. and will be retained by ANADIGICS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 252

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

to recognize the achievements of Lewis Howard Latimer.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 25, 1994

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mrs. MEEK, Ms.

BROWN of Florida, Mr. WATT, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. PAYNE

of New Jersey, Mr. FORD of Tennessee, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. CLAYTON,

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. HILLIARD, Mr. DIXON, Mr. RANGEL,

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Miss COLLINS of Michigan,

Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois, Mr. MFUME, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. BISHOP, Mr. TUCKER, Mr. WYNN, and Mr.

JEFFERSON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued to recognize the achievements of Lewis

Howard Latimer.

Whereas Lewis Howard Latimer was an African-American inventor, scientist, and humanist who lived from 1848 to

1928;

Whereas the scientific achievements of Lewis Howard Latimer, including the discovery of the long lasting carbon

filament that made commercial light feasible, contributed

significantly to the electrical lighting industry;
2

•HCON 252 IH

Whereas the values and achievements of Lewis Howard Latimer embody the spirit and essence of America, and he is

a positive role model for the youth of today;

Whereas Lewis Howard Latimer installed some of the earliest

outdoor electrical lighting systems used in Philadelphia

and New York, and wrote the 1st book concerning the

revolutionary electric lighting of Thomas Edison to be

published in the United States;

Whereas, as the son of former slaves and as a Civil War veteran, Lewis Howard Latimer campaigned tirelessly to advance civil rights for all Americans;

Whereas Lewis Howard Latimer was not only a scientist, but

also a civic leader, an artist, and a poet;

Whereas Lewis Howard Latimer was a truly exceptional

American, and merits recognition and appreciation; and

Whereas, in February 1995, the Queens Borough Public Library will unveil an exhibition examining the life of Lewis

Howard Latimer against the backdrop of social and technological change that occurred in the United States from

1848 through 1928: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a United States postage stamp should be is4 sued in recognition of the distinctive life and sci5 entific achievements of Lewis Howard Latimer and

6 his civic contributions to the social and technological

7 advancement of the United States; and

8 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of

9 the United States Postal Service should recommend
3

•HCON 252 IH

1 to the Postmaster General that such a postage

2 stamp be issued.

Æ
#### SKELTON v. STATE.

No. 26054.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, sixty days in jail and a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

The proceedings appearing regular and no error being apparent, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- 

### 2006-23706 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2006-NE-03 -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If
they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell

.

Estimated Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include access, testing, and close-up) Labor

cost (@$85/h

our) Parts Cost Total Costs
(labor +

parts) Number of

U.S. Registered

Products Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Initial inspection 8.0 $ 680.00 $498 $1,178.00 2,250 $2,650,500.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Repetitive inspection #1 16 .0 $1,360.0

0 $498 $1,858.00 1,125 $2,090,250.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Repetitive inspection #2 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $498 $1,858.00 

### 562 $1,044,196.0

0

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Repetitive inspection #3 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $ 

### 498 $1,858.00 

### 281 $522,098.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00



### The known number of products in compliance:
Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,307,044



### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection,

replacement) Work-hours
(include access,testing, and closeup) Labor cost (@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00



### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### : 

### Total fleet costs