alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Kenneth Eugene Walker, * From the 32nd District Court

of Nolan County,

Trial Court No. 13286.

Vs. No. 11-21-00284-CR * February 24, 2022

The State of Texas, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

This court has considered Kenneth Eugene Walker’s motion to dismiss this 

appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance 

with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-20 12- Directorate Identifier: 2012-NE-36-AD



## if

you mak e c hanges to the values in th e table he/ow, vou must ensure the totals update accordingh·

. 

## if th e_v do 1101. cl ick (or Tob) into and then out c!lthe changed cell.
Estimated Costs: Action Costs per Product (e

.g ., aircraft , engine , (e.g ., Inspection , propeller, appliance) Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + 

### u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not includ e on condition costs here access , testing , ( @ $85 /h parts) Registered and close-up) our) Products 

### TAY LPC Disc life 4

.0 $0 4 

### chg 12-0 1204 

### pro rated cost of disc 1

### Ok -6.5% 

### loss $650 4 

### of life ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 1)

., 

### ' ' i ' •' '


### .,, ,; 'i' ' l( d•

(, The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,960 Costs covered under warranty (ifknown) $
On-Condition Costs: Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product (e.g. , Inspection , (include access , (@$85 /hour) testing , and close- replacement) up)

i

I tl.

J

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use thisfi eld to exp lain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. Thisfi eld can also be used to exp lain warrant y cos ts): 

### ASE Estimate Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a " significant regulatory

# action**"? ~**  YES* 

# D NO 

### [gl *Explanation: 

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES* 

# D**NO~** *Explanation: 

### Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for either a Yes or No answer. - YES 

# D NO 

### [gl Explanation: 

### Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation ? YES* 

# D NO 

### [gl *Explanation:
Exhibit 32.1

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 Riverdale Mining Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer and 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; and

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

Dated this 19th day of February, 2008.



| | VLADIMIR VASKEVICH                                                     
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Vladimir Vaskevich, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer











---
Exhibit 32.2


                                 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of Movie Gallery, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Moreland,
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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; and

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as
of and for the periods covered in the report.


Date:   May 12, 2006


/s/ Mark D. Moreland
-----------------------------------
Name: Mark D. Moreland
Its:  Interim Chief Financial
Officer
Exhibit 13 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 Annual Report of Yantai Dahua Holdings, Company Limited (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:  1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date: March 13, 2007/s/ TANG YuxiangName:TANG YuxiangTitle:President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 13, 2007/s/ QU ShizhiName:QU ShizhiTitle:Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 395

To ensure that the volume of steel imports does not exceed the average

monthly volume of such imports during the 36-month period preceding

July 1997.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 9, 1999

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. SARBANES, Mr. BYRD, and Mr. HOLLINGS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To ensure that the volume of steel imports does not exceed

the average monthly volume of such imports during the

36-month period preceding July 1997.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Illegal Steel

5 Trade Act of 1999’’.

6 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN VOLUME OF STEEL IMPORTS.

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, within

8 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Presi9 dent shall take the necessary steps, by imposing quotas,
2

•S 395 IS

1 tariff surcharges, negotiated enforceable voluntary export

2 restraint agreements, or otherwise, to ensure that the vol3 ume of steel products imported into the United States dur4 ing any month does not exceed the average volume of steel

5 products that was imported monthly into the United

6 States during the 36-month period preceding July 1997.

7 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.

8 Within 60 days after the date of enactment of this

9 Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, through the United

10 States Customs Service, and the Secretary of Commerce

11 shall implement a program for administering and enforc12 ing the restraints on imports under section 2. The Cus13 toms Service is authorized to refuse entry into the customs

14 territory of the United States of any steel products that

15 exceed the allowable levels of imports of such products.

16 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

17 (a) CATEGORIES.—This Act shall apply to the follow18 ing categories of steel products: semifinished, plates,

19 sheets and strips, wire rods, wire and wire products, rail

20 type products, bars, structural shapes and units, pipes and

21 tubes, iron ore, and coke products.

22 (b) VOLUME.—Volume of steel products for purposes

23 of this Act shall be determined on the basis of tonnage

24 of such products.
3

•S 395 IS

1 SEC. 5. EXPIRATION.

2 This Act shall expire at the end of the 3-year period

3 beginning 60 days after the date of the enactment of this

4 Act.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-41133

INTEGRITY COMMUNICATIONS LTD,

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v.

UNIVERSAL SERVICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:08-CV-29

Before OWEN and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:**

Integrity Communications brought suit in state district court in Cameron

County, Texas against the Universal Service Administrative Company. The

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 8, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Judge Garwood was a member of the panel at the time of oral arguments. His death *

on July 14, 2011, causes us to decide this case by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not **

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 08-41133 Document: 00511781673 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2012
No. 08-41133

defendant USAC is a non-profit corporation authorized by regulations of the

Federal Communication Commission to administer what is called the E-Rate

Program. The lawsuit claimed USAC had erroneously determined that Integrity

was not in compliance with the program, notified Integrity’s present and

prospective clients of that determination, and stopped payments to Integrity. 

The suit requested a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and other relief. 

Integrity simultaneously sought review of USAC’s actions by the FCC. The state

court suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Texas. The district court dismissed on the basis that Integrity had

not exhausted the administrative process at the FCC. Integrity appealed. 

On August 28, 2008, three days before oral arguments in this court, the

FCC released its initial decision. After oral argument, we placed further

proceedings in this court in abeyance until completion of the FCC’s review. On

January 10, 2012, the FCC issued its final order in this case and ruled in favor

of USAC. On February 15, 2012, Integrity informed us that it would not petition

for review of the FCC’s order. 

Both parties agree that at most, all that is left in the case are the state law

claims. Although USAC urges us to resolve Integrity’s state law claims now, we

decline. Because the district court has not yet ruled on them, we vacate and

remand for further proceedings.

VACATED and REMANDED. 

2

Case: 08-41133 Document: 00511781673 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2012
EXHIBIT 99C

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Tang Yuxiang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Yantai Dahua Holdings
Company Limited (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

      The annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d); and

      The information contained in the annual report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Company.

Dated: December 15, 2005


/s/ Tang Yuxiang
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
                  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
                  from IJNT.net,  Inc.  December 31, 1999 financial  statements
                  and  is  qualified  in  its  entirety  by  reference  to  such
                  financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                      0000925739
<NAME>                     IJNT.net, Inc.

<CURRENCY>                 US

<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-31-1999

<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1.00

<CASH>                                        1,231,000
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 9,384,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (36,000)
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              10,914,000
<PP&E>                                        10,827,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                (1,041,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                22,334,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         10,247,000
<BONDS>                                       5,492,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      20,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    6,575,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  22,334,000
<SALES>                                       2,831,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,914,000
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12,585,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            459,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,130,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,130,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,130,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.58)



</TABLE>
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 28, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00102-CV

CHARLIE JONES, Appellant

V.

SOUTH WEST PAINT & BODY SHOP LP, B & B MAIN ST AUTO 

STORAGE, CITY OF BELLAIRE, Appellees

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1056216

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This appeal is from a judgment signed February 2, 2015. No clerk’s record 

has been filed. The clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal 

informed the court appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. 

On April 7, 2015, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within fifteen days, 
2

appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and provided this court 

with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the record. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby
mtvx_ex1071.htm


Exhibit 10.71


 







  





1











  






 







  





2











  






 


 







  





3











  






 


 







  





4











  






 


 







  





5











  






 







  





6
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Paul T. Zurita v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00274

- CR and 01

- 17

- 00275

- CR

Trial court case number: CR

- 14

- 0693 and CR

- 16

- 0646

Trial court: 22nd District Court of Hays County

On August 8, 2017, we abated th ese appeal s for the trial court to 

### determine whether appellant wishes to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant’s counsel had abandoned the appeal, and whether appellant is entitled to ha ve the reporter’s record filed without cost. The trial court held a hearing on September 8, 2017, in which it found that appellant wishes to pursue the appeal and appellant’s counsel intends to represent him in the appeal s . The trial court granted appellan t’s request for the reporter’s record to be provided without cost

and the record has now been filed.

Accordingly, the case s are REINSTATED on the Court’s active docket and the appeal will proceed under the applicable Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

### A ppellants’ brief is due to be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See T EX



### . R. A PP



### . P. 3 8

. 6 ( d ).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland Acting individually

Date: October 19, 2017
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Docket ID: FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

FEMA gives notice of the award amount for Serious Needs Assistance provided under the Individuals and Households Program for emergencies and major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2024.

# DATES:

This adjustment applies to emergencies and major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank Matranga, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 212-1000.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FEMA regulations at 44 CFR 206.119(b)(1) prescribe that FEMA will annually adjust the award amount for Serious Needs Assistance (SNA) provided under the Individuals and Households Program. FEMA gives notice that the award amount for SNA provided to an individual or household under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act with respect to any single emergency or major disaster is $770. The increase in award amount is for any single emergency or major disaster declared on or after October 1, 2024.

FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers of 2.5 percent for the 12-month period, which ended in August 2024. The Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor released the information on September 11, 2024.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.048, Federal Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-24701 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
*October 13, 1942.*

#### Estate of Archambault: Lynch, Appellant, vs. Fawcett and another, Executors, Respondents.

For the appellant: *Wood, Warner & Tyrrell*of Milwaukee, attorneys, and *Cantilion & Glover*of Los Angeles, California, of counsel.

For the respondents: *Sydney N. Leshin,*attorney, and *Willis G. Sullivcm*of counsel, both of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*

— Order affirmed.
#### The Governor, to the use of Allen, v. Barkley and others.

From Northampton.

Before parol evidence can be given of the contents of a paper alleged to be lost, such loss roust be satisfactorily shown. The declara*tions*of the administrator to the person into whose possession the paper was last traced, that he could not find the paper among those of his intestate, is not sufficient proof of the loss, where the administrator is living, and there is no obstacle to procuring his testimony.

This was an action against the defendants as securities of a constable on his official bond. In making out the plaintiff’s case, it became necessary for him to give in evidence a paper, or the contents thereof, which was traced to the possession of one *Wheeler,*who was since dead-To prove the loss of the paper, and to entitle the plaintiff to give parol evidence of its contents, he called a witness, *Stevenson,*who said that, by plaintiff’s direction, he had called on *Soon,*who was the administrator of *Wheeler,*and requested him to look over *Wheeler’s*papers for the one wanted; that *Boon*at the time was unwell, and produced a parcel of papers which he said were *Wheeler’s;*that he, *Stevenson,*looked over some of these papers, and *21
      *Boon*looked over some of them; that the witness did not find the desired paper, and *Boon*said that he did not, but *1 1 .*. that he would look farther at another time. 1 his witness also said, that in a conversation some time afterwads with Boon, he was informed by him that he had not found the desired paper.

It was admitted on the trial that *Boon*was alive, resided within a few miles of the court-house, and had not been summoned.

The Court, Donsteiu, Judge, holding that .Boonshould have been produced, and that his declarations were inadmissible, would not permit parol evidence to he given of the contents of the paper. The plaintiff’s counsel then directed a nonsuit to be entered, and moved for a new trial on the ground of the improper rejection of testimo,ny. INcw trial refused, judgment and appeal.

Ham,, Judge. —

I think the Judge decided rightly in not suffering the plaintiff to give evidence of the contents of the paper writing, beforo he had better accounted for the loss of it, when he had it amply in his power to do so, by calling *Boon,*the administrator of *Wheeler,*into whose possession they had traced it. *Boon’s*declarations' ought not to have been received, when there was no obstacle shown to procuring his testimony as a witness; of course the rule for obtaining a new trial should be discharged.

The other Judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 32

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

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 annual report of Lexon Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kenneth J. Eaken, Principal Executive Officer and Principal 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 and belief:

 (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 result of operations of the Company.


Date: April 26, 2005        /S/Kenneth J. Eaken
                            Principal Executive Officer
                            Principal Financial Officer

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 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.