alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 99.1
                            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 amendment to the Quarterly Report of Westell
Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, E. Van Cullens, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/ E. Van Cullens
E. Van Cullens
Chief Executive Officer
May 23, 2003
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 52 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 52

  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the final rule of the United States Fish and 
          Wildlife Service relating to ``Mitigation Policy''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2017

  Mr. Newhouse (for himself, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. 
  Cramer, Mrs. Radewagen, Mr. Sessions, and Mr. Biggs) submitted the 
  following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
  United States Code, of the final rule of the United States Fish and 
          Wildlife Service relating to ``Mitigation Policy''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating 
to ``Mitigation Policy'' (81 Fed. Reg. 83440 (November 21, 2016)), and 
such rule shall have no force or effect.
                                 <all>
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Cause No 01-13-00238-CV, Esmeralda Thurman v. Buy George Resale, L.L.C. d/b/a 

Riverbridge Resale & Consignment and Kim Bolt

On appeal from the 240th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, Trial Court 

Case No. 10-DCV-181877.

On September 9, 2013, appellant filed a document in this court entitled “Plaintiff’s 

Response to Defendant’s Motion for No Evidence Summary Judgment.” This document is not 

part of the clerk’s record that has been presented to this court. On March 6, 2014, this court 

ordered the district clerk to supplement the clerk’s record with a copy of the document. The 

district clerk’s office responded with an affidavit denying that it had such a document in its 

records.

If the parties agree that the document was filed in the trial court, they are ordered to 

utilize the procedures of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e) to supplement the clerk’s 

record and to inform this court when they have done so. Otherwise, the parties are to inform this 

court if they contend that the document was not actually filed. In either case, the parties are 

ordered to file a status report in the First Court of Appeals no later than March 24, 2014. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale 

Acting individually

Date: March 19, 2014
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER**

 

In connectionwith this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Mission Community Bancorp (the“Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2002, I, William C. Demmin,Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       ThisForm 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       Theinformation contained in this Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31,2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Date:  March 28, 2003 |                                                  |
|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|                            |                                                  |
|                            | By: /s/  William C. Demmin                            |
|                            | William C. Demmin                                     |
|                            | Executive Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-111527,
333-86072 and 333-120368) of Mattson Technology, Inc. of our report dated March 2, 2007, relating to the financial statements, financial statement
schedule, management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting, which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mattson Technology, Inc., as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 2, 2007.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 
San Jose, California 
August 3, 2007
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00420-CV

TIME WARNER, INC. and Time Warner Cable, LLC,

Appellants

v.

Dulio GONZALEZ,

Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-CI-06770

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE STONE, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for a new trial. It is ORDERED that Time Warner, 

Inc. and Time Warner Cable, LLC recover their costs of this appeal from appellee Dulio Gonzalez.

SIGNED June 11, 2014.

_____________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF
INCOME ON PAGES TWO AND THREE OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE,
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       6,659,889
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,211,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (342,774)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,796,986
<PP&E>                                       6,869,820
<DEPRECIATION>                               (960,655)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,028,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,118,525
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        44,307
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,196,289
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,240,596
<SALES>                                      1,323,650
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,334,551
<CGS>                                          397,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,968,691
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (58,399)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,424,259
<INCOME-TAX>                                   535,684
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            888,575
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   888,575
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16
        

</TABLE>
steam

_ record - Re: REQUEST FOR EXTENSIO N - PLANT ID 09166 - MILTON R. YOUNG

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.

Sincerely,

-----Craig Bleth <cbleth@minnkota.com> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: Craig Bleth <cbleth@minnkota.com> Date: 07/07/2010 05:52PM cc: John Graves <jgraves@minnkota.com>, Sc ott Hopfauf <SHopfauf@ minnkota.com>, Gerry From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: Craig Bleth <cbleth@minnkota.com> Date: 7/9/2010 12:14 PM Sub j ect: Re: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - PLANT ID 09166 - MILTON R. YOUNG Pa g e 1 of 2

8/24/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C3712B5DO

...Pfau <gpfau@minnkota.com>, Luther Kvernen <lkvernen@minnkota.com> Subject: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION - PLANT ID 09166 - MILTON R. YOUNG

Ms. Alicea,

Minnkota Power requests a 30-day extension for subm ittal of the Effluent Guidelines ICR, received by our facility on June 18, 2010. The reason for our extension reques t is the present staff workload related to construction of Consent Decr ee air pollution control pr ojects and planning for the upcoming fall outage on Unit 2 (which begins on September 11).

Please contact me with any questions you may ha ve. Will you be confirming the request has been granted?

Regards,

Craig J. Bleth Plant Environmental Superintendent Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc. Milton R. Young Station Office: 701-794-7261 Pa g e 2 of 2

8/24/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C3712B5DO

...
-

u:s. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Subiec:tNu."nber: 

~ 

~' OFFICE OF SURFACEMINING~rs_R---. ----i 

RECLAMATION AND ENF~RCEMENT ~ootulNurnber: 

a-. DIRECTIVES SYSTEM Date=Jl/lO/S? 

Subject: Drainaqe Control on Valley and Durable Rock Fills _...,. 

Approval: C...,_Ij!J. / //_ ' fo.-.. I Title: Director 

I 

1. Purpose. This directive outlines the .Office of surface - Mininq Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) policy on whether 

diversion channels constructed at valley and durable rock fills 

can be located at the interface of the fill and the natural 

qround. 

2. Definitions. None 

3. pqlicy/Proc&dures. 

a. Background. The requlations qoverninq the 

construction of excess spoil fills do not specify the location of 

.channels that divert surface·water runoff around the fill.· For 

.; .•. valley and head.:.of-hollow fills, 30 CFR 816.72 provides that the 

runoff be diverted into stabilized diversion channels. 

Requlations for durable rock fills at 30 CFR 816.7~ provide that 

surface water rupoff from areas adjacent to and above the fill is 

not allowed to flow onto the fill and is diverted into stabilized 

diversion channels. The l979 requlation lanquaqe expressly stating that such channels must be in natural qround was deleted 

from the rule in 1983. 

OSM/lt'l'l 

b. Policy. The Federal provisions in sections 816.72 and 

816.73 do' not prohibit the construction of diversion channels at 

the interface of the fill with the natural qround. Whether· 

located in natural qround or at the interface, each channel must 

be desiqned in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 816.43 

and must take into account site specific conditions of each 

channel. Diversion channels must be desiqned and constructed to 

ensure that they will not compromise the stability of the fill 

throuqh water infiltration or channel erosion or otherwise 

conflict with any applicable performance standards. In 

conductinq oversiqht of• State requlatory programs, OSMRE will 

evaluate the State's conformance to its program requirements. 

7/22/86 
4 . Reporting Requirements. None. 

5 . References. 

a. 30 CFR 816/817.72(a) (2) 

b. 30 CFR 816/817.73 (f) 

c. 30 CFR 816/817.43 

6. Effects on Other oocuments. None. 

7. Effectiye Date. Upon issuance. 

8. Contact. Division of Technical Services, (202) 343-1480. 

2
## Georqia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Air Protection Branch 4244 International Parkway Suite 120 Atlanta Georgia 30354 4041363-7000 Fax: 4041363-7100 Mark Williams, Commissioner Judson H. Turner, Director

July 19, 201 2

Ms. Gwen Keyes Fleming EPA Regional Administrator, Region IV United States Environmental Protection Agency Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303-3104 Dear Ms. Fleming:
This letter is being sent in responseto concerns that EPA has raised recently regarding Georgia EPD's Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Control Techniques Guidelines (CTGs). Based upon communications that we have had with your staff, we have been led to believe that EPA is planning to propose conditional approval of our SIP in accordance with Clean Air Act Section 1 1 0(k)(4). Specifically, EPA had a concern that for certain pre-2006 CTGs that the applicability for these CTGs was set at 100 tons per year for the 7-county area that was not a part of the 13-county 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA stated that the applicability for these 7 counties should be the same as the applicability for the 13 counties for each of the CTGs.
If EPA moves forward with conditional approval of our SIP in accordance with CleanAir Act Section 1 1 0(k)(4),we committo submit a SIP revisionto addressthe applicability concerns raised by EPA in the federal register notice within one year. Our planned schedule is asfollows:

i SIP revision out for public comment July 19, 2012 Address comments received, if any August 201 2 Submit final SIP revisionfor approval September 201 2 In light of the fact that we are today proposing rule changesto resolvethis issue, we request that EPA propose full approval of our SIP simultaneously with conditional approval. We are hopeful that we can get full approval from EPA for this SIP as soon as possible and we will continue to work with your staff to makethis happen. If youGwendolyn Keyes Fleming Page 2

should have any questions regardingthis SIP revision commitment, please contact Jimmy Johnston of my staff at (404)363-7014. Sincerely,

Judson H. Turner Director

Scott Davis, EPA Region 4 Lynorae Benjamin, EPA Region 4 SaraWaterson, EPA Region 4 Jimmy Johnston, Georgia EPD
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000927362
<NAME> PRI AUTOMATION, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                          40,507
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   29,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,151)
<INVENTORY>                                     22,621
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,579
<PP&E>                                          31,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                (15,640)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 134,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,834
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           199
<OTHER-SE>                                     104,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   134,156
<SALES>                                         25,316
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,316
<CGS>                                           19,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   8
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,627)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,019)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,608)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.28)
        

</TABLE>
#### State ex rel. Pinkerton and another, Appellants, vs. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the City of Milwaukee and others, Respondents.

*November 16*

December *11, 1923.*

*State ex rel. Howard W. Russell, Inc. v. Board of Fire & Police Comma's,*ante, p. 249, followed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: E. T. Fairchild, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

For the appellants there was a brief by *Roehr & Steinmetz,*and oral argument by *Alvin H. Tighe,*all of Milwaukee.

*John M. Niven,*city attorney, for the respondents.

Vinje, C. J.

This case is in all respects similar to *State ex rel. Howard W. Russell, Inc. v. Board of Fire & Police Comm’rs, ante,*p. 249, 196 N. W. 242 (decided herewith), and the order of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Order affirmed.

Esci-iweiler, J., dissents.
----

----

|   | 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      Registrant. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                        |   |                                                 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                        |   |                                                 |   |
| DateMarch 31,      2008       | By:    | /s/       Gary Hokkanen                         |   |
|                                                        |   | Name:      Gary Hokkanen                        |   |
|                                                        |   | Title :  Chief      Financial Officer |   |
|                                                        |   |                                                 |   |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MAY 28, 2014

NO. 03-13-00769-CV

Brenda Dickerson, Appellant

v.

Federal National Mortgage Association a/k/a Fannie Mae, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on November 8, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Brenda Dickerson has not prosecuted her appeal and 

did not comply with a notice from the clerk of this Court. The appeal is thus subject to 

dismissal. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. Because appellant 

is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
On appellants’ petition for reconsideration filed June 28,

and respondents’ petition for reconsideration filed July 19,

appellants’ petition denied, respondents’ petition allowed, former opinion (102 Or App 225, 793 P2d 348) modified and adhered to as modified September 5,

Weaver’s reconsideration denied November 28, 1990,

Benson’s petition for review and Weaver’s petition for review denied January 15, 1991 (311 Or 87)

#### Claude A. BENSON and Delores A. Benson, *Appellants, v.*Alice T. WEAVER, *Respondent.*Claude A. BENSON and Delores A. Benson, *Appellants, v.*R. Scott WEAVER and Bonnie J. Weaver, *Respondents.*

(85-3795-J-2, 85-3796-J-1; CA A51104)

796 P2d 396

David V. Gilstrap and Ainsworth, Davis, Gilstrap, Harris & Balocca, P.C., Ashland, for appellants’ petition.

Thomas C. Howser and Howser & Munsell, Ashland, for respondents’ petition.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Warren and Rossman, Judges.

ROSSMAN, J.

*322ROSSMAN, J.

Appellants and respondents each have petitioned for reconsideration of our opinion. 102 Or App 225, 793 P2d 348 (1990). ORAP 9.15. We deny appellants’ petition, grant respondents’ petition, modify our opinion and adhere to it as modified.

Respondents point out that the evidence on summary judgment does not support the language in our opening sentence that they “represented that the property had been lawfully partitioned.” We correct that sentence to read:

> “Plaintiffs purchased real property from defendants in November, 1979, at which time plaintiffs alleged that defendants represented that the property had been lawfully partitioned.”

References thereafter to “unlawful partitioning” should read “improper partitioning.”

Our modification does not change our determination that the trial court did not err in denying respondents’ motion for summary judgment. Material issues of fact remain, and summary judgment was not appropriate. ORCP 47.

Appellants’ petition for reconsideration denied; respondents’ petition for reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.