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

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1131]

Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 86 Tacoma, Washington, Area

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Port of Tacoma (Washington), grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 86, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand 
FTZ 86 to include additional FTZ space at Sites 1, 2 and 3, and to 
include four new sites in the Tacoma, Washington, area, adjacent to the 
Tacoma Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 4-2000; filed February 17, 
2000);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 11549, March 3, 2000) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 86 is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and further subject 
to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall 
zone project.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of November 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 00-31112 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```
#### KRAKER v. MAY.

No. 3875.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 18, 1939.

Grisham & Grisham, of Tyler, for appellant.

John Bruce Cox and R. M. Hutchins, both of Tyler, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Appellee, Henry B. May, brought this suit against John Kraker, of Gregg'County, Bryson Pipe Line Company, a corporation, domiciled in Wichita County, and Kraco Refining Company, a corporation, domiciled in Jack County. The Bryson Pipe Line Company filed plea asserting its privilege to be sued in Wichita County, and the same was sustained. Kraker also filed plea of privilege claiming the privilege of being sued in Gregg County. Kraker’s plea was overruled, and he appeals.

Appellee has filed no brief.

The controverting affidavit filed by May is in reply to both of the pleas of privilege, and it is obvious that in large measure the allegations relate to the plea of privilege of the Bryson Pipe Line Company.

As we construe the lengthy petition in the case, recovery is sought against Kraker for $10,000 damages for alleged fraud. The petition is labeled at its head as “Petition and Bill of Discovery.” It seeks a discovery of the defendants of various matters inquired about in the petition. There is nothing to suggest that the bill of discovery phase of the suit is maintainable against: Kraker in Smith. County. In the petition and in the controverting affidavit it is alleged that certain representations were made by Kraker in Smith County and that' the same were false. It seems plaintiff- is-seeking to recover damages in the said sum of $10,000 against Kraker on account of. these alleged false and fraudulent repre?, sentations.

Conceding the sufficiency of the petition to state a cause of action of this nature against Kraker, the evidence, as we view it, shows no cause of action against Kraker on account of the misrepresentations alleged; In order to sustain the venue in Smith County it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove actionable fraud committed by Kraker in Smith County. Compton v. Elliott, 126 Tex. 232, 88 S.W.2d 91; Coalson v. Holmes, 111 Tex. 502, 240 S.W. 896; Benson v. Jones, 117 Tex. 68, 296 S.W. 865.

The evidence failing to show actionable) fraud committed' by Kraker, the plea of privilege should have been sustained.

Reversed and judgment here rendered sustaining such plea.
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Acting Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation (the Company), each
hereby certify that, to his knowledge on the date hereof:



|1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 4, 2003 |  | /s/    ALFRED J.
NOVAK                                                 
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                       |  | Alfred J. Novak, Chief Executive Officer of Novoste Corporation        
|                       | 
|Date: November 4, 2003 |  | /s/    SUBHASH C.
SARDA                                                
|                       |  | Subhash C. Sarda, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Novoste Corporation



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
Novoste Corporation and will be retained by Novoste Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as
part of the Form 10-Q.
GUADALUPE COUNTY 

211 W.1Court: St. . 

Seguin, TX 78155-5730 

; ', ':. 

Debr~ Crow, District Clerk. •· · 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station 

~ustin, Texas 78711 

".:"'-. ;' ,-r,.: 

'·-: ~ .-. 

· :~hone: (830) 303~8873 

·· .. Fax: (S30) 3~9-1943 . , ~ . >. ·, 

· . . AIOOIA . Re: 01-1045~CR The State of Texas VS. John David Kohlberg ~,CO~vtk 

We received the Order from the Court of Appeals on June .18t\ 2015 requiring a 

response as to why we'had not filed the defendant's application for wrh of habeas 

' ' ~ corp4s·.· ·upon further research, we '11ave nofrec~ived -~iwrit of habeas ,coq)u~Jrom : ' 

the defendant on this case. The lastknown filing from Mr. Kohlberg was dated 

January 8th, 2014 titled: "Motion Re:4l.l;esti~g.Credit for Back Time". This motion 

was submitted to the judge and was' re,tumea denied. .. . ·. ~ 

Please contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns at (830) 303-

8879. 

Thank-you and have a great day! 

Debra Crow, District Clerk 

Guadalupe County Justice Center 

211 West Court Street, Suite 209 

Seguin, Texas 78155
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 9, 20 18 No. 04

- 18

- 00633

- CV CITY OF RIO GRANDE, TEXAS , et al. ,

Appellant s

v. BFI WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley, Appellees From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 15

- 604 Honorable Migdalia Lopez, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Appellants filed a “Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Appellate Records from Prior Proceedings” requesting that we take judicial notice of the entire records in prior Appeal Nos. 04

- 15

- 00729

- CV (an interlocutory appeal) and 04

- 16

- 00450

- CV (a mandamus). The appellee filed a response opposing the request as unnecessary, duplicative, and unduly voluminous

. Having considered appellants’ motion, appellee’s response, and appellants’ reply, t he appellants’ “Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Appellate Records from Prior Proceedings” is DENIED. A seven - volume clerk’s record was filed in this appeal on September 19 , 2018. If a particular d ocument necessary to this appeal is not contained in the record , appellants may request a suppl emental clerk’s record as provided by T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 34.5( c ).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her eunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of October, 201 8

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2015 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2015

 To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and New England 
 National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park System, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2017

 Ms. Baldwin (for herself, Mr. Markey, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Klobuchar, 
Mr. Franken, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Peters, Mr. Murphy, Ms. Warren, and Mr. 
   Johnson) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To clarify the status of the North Country, Ice Age, and New England 
 National Scenic Trails as units of the National Park System, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``National Scenic Trails Parity Act''.

SEC. 2. NORTH COUNTRY NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.

    Section 5(a)(8) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(8)) is amended in the third sentence by inserting ``as a unit 
of the National Park System'' before the period at the end.

SEC. 3. ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.

    Section 5(a)(10) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(10)) is amended by striking the third and fourth sentences and 
inserting ``The trail shall be administered by the Secretary of the 
Interior as a unit of the National Park System.''.

SEC. 4. NEW ENGLAND NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL.

    Section 5(a)(28) of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
1244(a)(28)) is amended in the third sentence by inserting ``as a unit 
of the National Park System,'' after ``administer the trail''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Subhash C. Sarda, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novoste Corporation;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untruestatement 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 quarterly report;

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant 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 materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 7, 2004
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906

of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Geospatial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Thomas R. Oxenreiter, 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, as amended; and

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



|                   |  |        |  |                         
|------------------ |  | ------ |  | ------------------------
|Date: May 17, 2010 |  | By:    |  | /s/ Thomas R. Oxenreiter
|                   |  | Name:  |  | Thomas R. Oxenreiter    
|                   |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

MedImmune, Inc.Certification
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)

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 MedImmune, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|/s/DAVID M. MOTTDavid M. Mott Chief Executive
Officer, President and Vice ChairmanMarch 9, 2004        |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|/s/LOTA S. ZOTHLota S. Zoth Vice President and Controller, Acting Chief Financial
OfficerMarch 9, 2004 |  | 

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

This
certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as Exhibit 32 to the Form 10-K 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) and in accordance with Item 601(b)(32)(ii) of
Regulation S-K. This certification is not being "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and is not and should not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into the Form 10-K or any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

---
#### Ex parte HIGHT.

No. 20789.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

*263Burt Barr, of Dallas, for appellant.

■Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Hon. Winter King, Judge of the Criminal Court of Dallas County sitting at the July Term, 1939, remanding the appellant to the County Jail of Dallas County. In his application for a writ of habeas corpus, appellant averred that he was being held in jail “not by virtue of any writ, order or process.” In response to the writ, a capias pro fine, issued out of Walker County, was introduced, showing that appellant was held for 'refusal or inability to pay a fine assessed against him in the amount of $15.25. No final judgment appears in the record. The same is before us without a statement of the facts, briefs, or any exceptions whatsoever. Moreover notice of appeal appears only by docket entry and a recitation in the appeal bond. This is not sufficient. See Sec. 123 of Vol. 4, Tex. Juris., pp. 171, 172.

Consequently this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

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.
IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS

FEBRUARY 25 , 2014

WESTERN DISTRICT

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD75425 Michael Limley vs. State of Missouri

WD76313 Anthony Johnson vs. State of Missouri

WD76397 Emilie Gaudin vs. Division of Employment Security

WD76405 Randy Ralstin vs. State of Missouri

WD76547 Second Injury Fund vs. Daneen Pennington

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b)

AND ISSUED PER CURIAM

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

WD74260 State of Missouri vs. Meli ssa Thompson

WD76059 State of Missouri vs. Terry Lea Gardner

WD76072 State of Missouri vs. Demetrius L. Boyce

WD76137 State of Missouri vs. Anthony Tyrone McNack
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          10,377
<SECURITIES>                                    46,981
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,055
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,717
<PP&E>                                          18,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,824
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  96,826
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           161
<OTHER-SE>                                      77,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    96,826
<SALES>                                         30,523
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,523
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,707
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    873
<INCOME-TAX>                                       253
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                620
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       620
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Carter, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered August 23, 1989, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF ACTING 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 the Report of USCorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert Dultz, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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, 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/ Robert DultzRobert Dultz, PresidentChief Executive Officer and

Acting Chief Financial Officer





Date: May 26, 2011