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



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
  (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 Spectra Energy Partners, LP.
 Date:
November 14, 2007
    
    /s/ Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Lon C. Mitchell, Jr.Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerSpectra Energy Partners GP, LLCGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners (DE) GP, LPGeneral Partner of Spectra Energy Partners, LP
#### VETTER v. NICHOLSON.

No. 8772.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Nov. 2, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 23, 1938.

John C. Marburger and Moss & Moss, all of LaGrange, for appellant.

C. C. Jopling, of LaGrange, for appellee.

BLAIR, Justice.

Appellee, Martha Nicholson, sued appellant, C. G. Vetter, Independent Executor of the Estate of Thomas Burton, deceased, for the reasdnable value of her services and care rendered to Thomas Burton, deceased. A trial to a jury on special issues resulted in judgment for appellee against appellant for $240. The appeal is predicated upon several propositions, all of which are overruled except one, which complains of the argument of counsel of appellee to the jury, as follows: “Gentlemen,of the jury, by virtue of the law the mouth of this plaintiff, Martha Nicholson, is closed. .She cannot testify and tell what her contract was with Thomas Burton, because he is dead, and the law will not permit her to testify as to her agreements with him.”

Immediately after this argument was made appellant’s counsel excepted thereto, and the court instructed the jury to disregard same. In several recent cases this court has held ^ that such argument is improper, and that the trial court’s instruction to disregard it after it is made is ineffectual to cure the error. Gray v. Cheatham, Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 762; Ashmore v. Pike, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 276; and Johnson v. Durst, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1000.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket** Docket Number: F AA - 2009 - 1249 Directorate Identifier: 2009NM100AD

777 - 57A0064 IN 01 --- 5/28/09 777 - 57A0064 IN 02 --- 10/29/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### Ex parte BOURLAND.

No. 19038.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 12, 1937.

■ Currie McCutcheon and Bruce Graham, both of Dallas, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the judge of the criminal district court of Dallas county refusing to discharge the relator upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus.

It is shown that the relator was held in custody by virtue of an executive warrant of the Governor of this state issued upon the demand of the Governor of the State of Oklahoma.

The warrant upon its face shows that the relator stood charged by “préliminary information and other papers.” In all other respects the warrant is entirely regular.

The relator insists that the warrant was unauthorized because it was based upon a charge in the demanding state lodged only by information and that this fact is shown by the warrant itself. It is no longer an open question in this state that an executive warrant may not issue alone upon a charge by information in the demanding state. See Ex parte Stone, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 302, 87 S.W. (2d) 267; Ex parte Shillings, 124 Tex.Cr. R. 482, 63 S.W. (2d) 853; Ex parte Yawman, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 20, 18 S.W.(2d) 647; Ex parte Chittenden, 124 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 61 S.W. (2d) 1008, 1010. It will be noted, however, that the executive warrant in the instant case shows that the charge was not only by the “preliminary information,” but that it was also by “other papers.” There was offered in evidence an affidavit that the relator was charged by affidavit in the demanding state with a felony. This affidavit is shown to have been made by the alleged injured party before a magistrate in the State of Oklahoma.

It is insisted by the respondent that the evidence of this affidavit relates to the term “other papers” as referred to in the warrant. The question for determina*252tion, therefore, is whether the warrant upon its face must show that it was issued upon an' indictment or. affidavit, or whether the proof may he resorted to for the purpose of showing that the warrant was in fact based upon the affidavit or indictment. In the Chittenden Case, supra, this court, in passing upon such' a question, said: “Returning to the first vital question; i. e., must the rendition warrant, upon its face, show facts that warranted its issuance under the federal statutes. * * * We are compelled to answer this-question in the affirmative.”

The rule appears to be definitely settled, therefore, that the warrant itself must be sufficient upon its face. In the light of this rule, it is concluded that the extradition warrant was not sufficient and that the relator should have been discharged.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the relator ordered discharged.
EXHIBIT 23a

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-115100 on Form S-3 of our report dated February 27, 2007 which expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph for the adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 158, EMPLOYERS' ACCOUNTING FOR
DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION AND OTHER POSTRETIREMENT PLANS, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Public Service Electric and Gas Company for the year
ended December 31, 2006.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
February 27, 2007
6. Except as otherwise provided in Section 13 of the Employment Agreement, any controversy,dispute, or claim arising out of, in connection with, or in relation to, the interpretation,performance or breach of this Amendment, including, without limitation, the validity, scope, andenforceability hereof, may at the election of any party, be solely and finally settled byarbitration conducted in Chicago, Illinois, by and in accordance with the then existing rules forcommercial arbitration of the American Arbitration Association, or any successor organization andwith the expedited procedures thereof (collectively, the “Rules”). Each of the parties heretoagrees that such arbitration shall be conducted by a single arbitrator selected in accordance withthe Rules; provided that such arbitrator shall be experienced in deciding cases concerningthe matter which is the subject of the dispute. Any of the parties may demand arbitration bywritten notice to the other and to the arbitrator set forth in this Section 6 (“Demand forArbitration”). Each of the parties agrees that if possible, the award shall be made in writing nomore than thirty (30) days following the end of the proceeding. Any award rendered by thearbitrator(s) shall be final and binding and judgment may be entered on it in any court ofcompetent jurisdiction. Each of the parties hereto agrees to treat as confidential the results ofany arbitration (including, without limitation, any findings of fact and/or law made by thearbitrator) and not to disclose such results to any unauthorized person other than to enforce anyaward rendered. The parties intend that this agreement to arbitrate be valid, enforceable andirrevocable. In the event of any arbitration with regard to this Amendment, each party shall payits own legal fees and expenses, provided, however, that the parties agree to sharethe cost of the arbitrator’s fees.[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]
2

 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of the date firstwritten above.      ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, INC.
# CE2004065EN.01025301.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/253 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/253

---

(2004/C 65 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2981/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2003)

Subject:   Breach of Directive 89/48/EEC

Subject:

Can the Commission list the law diplomas awarded in the Member States on completion of higher-education studies of at least three years' duration (or those awarded by any other university college, higher-education establishment or other establishment with the same level of training) which are covered by the provisions of Directive 89/48/EEC (1) and which, in accordance with that Directive, grant access to the profession of lawyer in a Member State other than that in which the diplomas were acquired?

1

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

(17 November 2003)

The Commission does not have a list of the diplomas which give access to the profession of lawyer in the different Member States and can be recognised in accordance with Directive 89/48/EEC (2). This Directive leaves Member States free to regulate professions within their territories and to establish the level and type of qualifications required for a given profession. To the Commission's knowledge, some Member States grant access to the profession of lawyer by their nationals conditional not only on possession of a law degree but also on completing a period of supervised practice and on passing an additional examination. Information on the diploma required in each Member State, can be obtained from the national ‘contact points’ for diplomas and professional recognition: the list of these contact points is published on the Commission's website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/qualifications/index.htm. Lastly, Directive 98/5/EC (3), although it does not list the diplomas required for access to the profession of lawyer, contains a list of the titles of lawyer existing in all Member States.

2

3

---

(1)  OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

1

(2)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration.

2

(3)  Directive 98/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, OJ L 77, 14.3.1998.

3

---
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, DC 20549
 
 FORM 8-K
 Current Report
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED):
March 14, 2007
 
 PETROQUEST ENERGY, INC.
  DELAWARE
(State of Incorporation)
    
    72-1440714
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)400 E. Kaliste Saloom Rd., Suite 6000Lafayette, Louisiana
(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    70508
(Zip code)
    o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
   1




---



##### 



Item 8.01. Other Events.
  2




---



##### 



PETROQUEST ENERGY, INC.Date:  March 15, 2007
    By:
    /s/ Michael O. AldridgeMichael O. AldridgeExecutive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 3
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.10
                             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
                            PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION
                            DIRECTORS STOCK UNIT PLAN

      Effective as of January 1, 1997, Phelps Dodge Corporation ("Corporation")
adopted the Phelps Dodge Corporation Directors Stock Unit Plan ("Plan") in order
to attract, retain and motivate the best qualified directors for the benefit of
the Corporation and its shareholders. Subsequently, the Plan was amended and
restated, effective January 1, 1998, to reflect the replacement of the
Retirement Plan for Directors of Phelps Dodge Corporation by the Plan and to
change the name of the Plan. The First Amendment to the Plan was adopted
effective as of January 1, 2001.

      By this Second Amendment, the Corporation intends to document the
September 1, 2004 action of its Board of Directors in which it amended the Plan
to modify the number of Units awarded to Eligible Directors under the Plan.

      1. The provisions of this Second Amendment shall be effective as of July
1, 2004 and shall apply to those Grants occurring on or after January 1, 2005.
This Second Amendment shall amend only the provisions of the Plan as set forth
herein and those provisions not expressly amended hereby shall remain in full
force and effect.

      2. Section 3.(a) of the Plan is amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows:

      Section 3. Units

      (a) Unit Awards. Subject to the requirement of Section 5.(a), beginning on
      January 1, 2005 and on each subsequent January 1, during the term of the
      Plan, each Eligible Director serving as a Director on such date, who has
      been a Director continuously since the prior November 15, shall be awarded
      the number of Units equal in value to Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
      ($75,000.00) as of the date of Grant. The number of Units granted in
      accordance with this Section 3.(a) shall be calculated by dividing
      $75,000.00 by the Fair Market Value as of the December 31 immediately
      preceding the date of Grant. For purposes of this calculation, Unit awards
      can result in fractional Units being credited to an Eligible Director's
      Account.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Phelps Dodge Corporation has caused this Second
Amendment to be executed as of the 1st day of September, 2004.

                                        PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION

                                        /s/ David Pulatie    12/28/04
                                        _______________________________________
                                        Senior Vice President, Human Resources
**Exhibit 23.1**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmCDM Resource Partners, L.P.:We consent to the use of our reports included herein with respect to: 1) the balance sheets of CDM Resource Management Predecessor as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements ofoperations, partners’ equity, and cash flows for each of the yearsin the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, included herein;  2) the balance sheet of CDM Resource Partners, L.P. as of June 20, 2007; and  3) the balance sheet of CDM RP GP, L.P. as of June 20, 2007;and with respect to the reference toour firm under the heading “Experts” in the prospectus./s/ KPMG LLPHouston, Texas
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 August 7, 2007
 
 UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION HOLDINGS, INC.
UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION, INC.
  Delaware 
Texas
(State or other jurisdiction 
of incorporation)
    
    001-15843
333-48279
(Commission File Number)
    
    13-3989167
74-1282680
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
 4444 Brittmoore Road 
Houston, Texas
    
    77041(Address of principal executive offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (713) 335-7000
 
   o
 o
 o
 o




---



##### 



ITEM 2.02 RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION.
   ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.
 (d) Exhibits
 Exhibit No.
    
    Exhibit99.1
    
    Press release of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. dated August 7, 2007.
 2




---



##### 



UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION HOLDINGS, INC.
UNIVERSAL COMPRESSION, INC.
(Registrants)Date: August 7, 2007
    By:
    /s/ J. Michael AndersonJ. Michael AndersonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 3




---



##### 



EXHIBITNUMBER
    
    EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION99.1
    
    Press release of Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. dated August 7, 2007.
 4
# Official Journal L 217/22 A

| | ISSN 1725-2555 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 217 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 4822 August 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2555

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 217

English edition

Legislation

Volume 4822 August 2005

---

| Contents | | II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | Council |
| | * | Council Decision of 18 July 2005 on the accession of the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 94 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision and Regulation No 95 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision (1) | 1 |

Contents

II   Acts whose publication is not obligatory

page

Council

*

Council Decision of 18 July 2005 on the accession of the European Community to United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation No 94 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a frontal collision and Regulation No 95 on provisions concerning the approval of vehicles with regard to the protection of the occupants in the event of a lateral collision (1)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
NUMBER 13-22-00304-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN THE INTEREST OF M.R. AND X.R., CHILDREN

On appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Aransas County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Following an initial 

motion to extend the time to file the brief, appellant’s brief was due on or before 

September 12, 2022. However, on September 1, 2022, the Department of Family and 

Protective Services (Department) filed a motion to modify the judgment in the trial court.

Appellant filed a second motion for extension of time seeking twenty days of additional 

time to file the brief from the date the trial court rules on the Department’s motion to modify 

the judgment. This Court granted appellant’s second motion on September 8, 2022. To 
2

date, no supplemental records have been filed demonstrating the trial court’s ruling. 

Further, no other motions or notices have been filed by either party.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that 

appeals in such cases are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the 

notice of appeal is filed. See TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). As such, it is the policy of this 

Court to limit extensions of time in such cases absent truly extraordinary circumstances. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

Accordingly, appellant is ordered to file her brief with this Court no later than the 

10th day from the date of this order. After appellant’s brief has been filed, appellee’s time 

to file its brief will begin.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

5th day of October, 2022.
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 322 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2015 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 16105 Swingley Ridge Road in Chesterfield, 

Missouri, as the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher Post Office’’. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

HR 322 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SGT. ZACHARY M. FISHER POST OFFICE. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 16105 Swingley Ridge Road in 

4 Chesterfield, Missouri, shall be known and designated as 

5 the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher Post Office’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Sgt. Zachary M. Fish10 er Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 

2015. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I N THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT N OT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

A NGEL OGANDO , A ppellant , v. Case No. 5D 21

- 2374 LT Case No. 2018

- CF

- 016878

- A

- O STATE O F FLORIDA ,

A ppellee

. _______________________________/ Dec is ion filed November 15, 2022 A ppeal f rom the C ircuit Cour t for O ran ge County , Luis Fer nando Calder on , Judge

. M atthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Nancy Ryan, A s sistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. A shley Moody, A ttorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, A ssistant Attorney General, Daytona B each, for Appellee. P ER CURIAM. AFFIRMED.
COHEN , WALLIS and TRAVER , JJ., concur.