alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 5


                                                                 October 8, 1998




Tanknology-NDE International, Inc.
8900 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Building 200
Austin, Texas   78757

Gentlemen:

     In   connection   with  the   Registration   Statement  on  Form  S-8  (the
"Registration Statement") being filed by Tanknology-NDE  International,  Inc., a
Delaware   corporation  (the  "Company"),   with  the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission  under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,  relating to 6,250,000
shares of common  stock of the  Company,  par value  $.0001  per share  ("Common
Stock"),  that may be issued  pursuant to the 1989 Long-Term  Incentive Plan and
1995 Incentive Plan for  Non-Management  Employees (the "Plans"),  certain legal
matters in connection  with those shares of Common Stock are being passed on for
the Company by us. At your request,  this opinion is being  furnished for filing
as Exhibit 5 to the Registration Statement.

     In our capacity as your  counsel in the  connection  referred to above,  we
have examined the Company's  Restated  Certificate of Incorporation  and Bylaws,
each as amended to date,  and the  originals,  or copies  certified or otherwise
identified,  of  corporate  records  of  the  Company,  certificates  of  public
officials and of representatives of the Company,  statutes and other instruments
and documents as a basis for the opinions hereinafter  expressed.  In connection
with this  opinion,  we have relied on  certificates  of officers of the Company
with respect to the accuracy of material factual matters contained in or covered
by the certificates referred to above.

     Based on and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

     1.   The Company is a corporation  duly  organized and validly  existing in
          good standing under the laws of the State of Delaware.

     2.   On the issuance of shares of Common Stock  pursuant to the  provisions
          of the Plans and the related award agreements  authorized and approved
          by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company
          for  consideration  at least  equal to the par value of those  shares,
          those shares of Common Stock will be duly  authorized by all necessary
          corporate  action on the part of the Company,  validly  issued,  fully
          paid and nonassessable.




<PAGE>


                                       -2-
                                                                 October 8, 1998


     We hereby  consent  to the  filing of this  opinion  as an  exhibit  to the
Registration Statement.

                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                 /s/ BAKER & BOTTS, L.L.P.
                                              ----------------------------------
<PAGE>
#### Moyer v. Lado

*636On April 25, 1977, the above-captioned actions were consolidated pursuant to Rule 213 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. On October 22, 1976, plaintiff Martin Moyer (hereinafter plaintiff) filed a complaint with the office of the administrator against defendant Good Samaritan Hospital (hereinafter defendant). On June 9, 1977, more than 200 days after the service of plaintiffs complaint on defendant, defendant filed a petition to join as an additional defendant, Dennis M. Bane, M.D. We are being asked by defendant to permit the late joinder of Doctor Dennis M. Bane as an additional defendant.

The period for joining an additional defendant as a matter of right is 60 days after service of the complaint upon the original defendant, but may be extended upon cause shown: Pa.R.C.P. 2253. However, “Ordinarily, the bar of the passage of the sixty-day period will not be waived by the court.” Goodrich-Amram, Procedural Rules Service, Vol. 3, §2253-3, p. 60.

An application for an extension of time in which to join “an additional defendant must be made by petition averring the facts justifying the grant of an extension. The petition must contain: (1) some reasonable justification or excuse for the delay; (2) a statement of the facts alleged to render the proposed additional defendant alone liable, or ha-ble with, or liable over to defendant; and (3) allegations that the late joinder will not be prejudicial to the proposed additional defendant.” Goodrich-Amram, Procedural Rules Service, Vol. 3, §2253-3, p. 63.

Defendant has not met his burden in this instance. The reason or excuse for the delay given in *637defendant’s petition to join additional defendant is defendant’s hesitancy to authorize the joinder of proposed additional defendant Dennis M. Bane, M.D. because he is a high-ranking member of its staff. Such an explanation is not a reasonable excuse to justify the inordinate delay of more than four months after the 60-day joinder period as a matter of right. Defendant sets forth no other facts to indicate why the information needed could not have been discovered during the 60-day period, or at least within a reasonable time thereafter.

Further, defendant does not allege in its petition to join additional defendant that the late joinder will not be prejudicial to the proposed additional defendant. See Goodrich-Amram, Procedural Rules Service, Vol. 3, §2253-3, p. 63. And, finally, defendant did not verify any of the statements of fact alleged in his petition to join additional defendant: Pa.R.C.P. 206; Goodrich-Amram, Procedural Rules Service, Vol. 3, §2253-2, p. 63, fn. 4.

Because defendant has not set forth in its petition any good reason for permitting an extension of time in which to join Dennis M. Bane, M.D. as an additional defendant, and has not complied with the other requirements for late joinder, we issue the following

ORDER

And now, June 22, 1977, upon consideration of the petition of defendant Good Samaritan Hospital to join an additional defendant, it is hereby ordered and decreed that the petition of defendant Good Samaritan Hospital is denied.
#### FREDERICK DIENER *vs.*CHARLES SCHLEY et al.

APPEAL m EQUITY EEOM WALWORTH CIRCUIT COURT.

This -was an. appeal from a final decree, based upon tbe finding of tbe jury as returned to tbe court, in tbe preceding case, and was in conformity witb tbe prayer of tbe bill, and as tbe statement of facts is tbe same as in tbe preceding case, it is unnecessary to repeat them bere.

*By the*Court,

Whitok, C. J.

Tbis is an appeal from tbe final decree, made in tbe preceding case. As tbe final decree was founded on tbe finding of tbe jury, tbe same reasons exist for reversing it, tbat are given for reversing tbe order made in tbat case. Tbe decree must therefore be reversed, and tbe case sent back for further proceedings.
# Georgia Guard Field Artillery Unit Conducts Deployment Ceremony

/ Published Dec. 13, 2023

FORT STEWART, Ga. – The Savannah-based 1st Battalion, 118th Field Artillery Regiment “cased” their unit colors in Fort Stewart Dec. 12 in a symbolic ceremony before mobilizing overseas.

The 1-118th FAR’s upcoming planned deployment will support operations in the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility.

“We are incredibly proud of the Soldiers who have volunteered to tackle this challenging mission,” said Lt. Col Russell Dasher, 1-118th FAR battalion commander. “We are honored to serve with them all.”

The unit has prepared and developed leaders for this challenging mission for several years through individual weapon systems qualification and large-scale training exercises domestically and abroad. The learning curve will increase as Soldiers of the unit now work to become proficient with air defense artillery weapon systems.

“Over the coming 12 months, the 1-118th FAR will conduct in-depth training in counter rocket artillery mortar and counter unmanned aircraft systems,” said Sgt. Maj. Christopher Poole, 1-118th FAR battalion command sergeant major.

The Soldiers’ families and employers have supported them throughout the battery of training requirements and preparations.

“We thank our family, friends and employers for the overwhelming support we have received as we go forward to complete our mission,” said Poole.

Members of the 1-118th Field Artillery Regiment have answered the call to service as far as the late 1700s. They have activated in response to World War I, World War II and, in recent decades, multiple times to Iraq and Afghanistan.
#### HENRY CARPENTER, et. al., *Plaintiff in error, vs.*JOHN GINDER, *Defendant in error.*

If one party calls and examines a witness, incompetent, from interest, to testify, and he is admitted against the objection of the opposite party, the objection is not waived by tho latter recalling and examining such witness.

This case was precisely similar to the preceding, with the single exception that, after the said John Pettifer had been called as a witness, and testified against the objection of the opposite party, and the plaintiff had rested his case, the defendant recalled Pettifer and examined him. The counsel for the defendant in error insisted that this was a waiver by the defendant below, of all objection to the witness on the ground of competency.

*By the Court-,*

Whitob, C. J.

The questions involved in this case, are the same, precisely, as those which were involved in the case of *Carpenter, et al. vs. Moser,*decided at the present term of this court, except that Pettifer, after his testimony, had been taken on behalf of the plaintiff below, was called by Carpenter to testify. This, it is contended by the defendant in error, was a waiver of all objection to the witness on the part of Carpenter, and made him competent. In support of this proposition we are referred to the cases of 7 *J. R.*179; *Miller vs. Starks,*13 *J. R.*517; 4 *Watts & Sergt.*171; 7 *Cow.*238; 2 *Cow.*166.

None of the cases referred to, sustain the position. They only prove that when a party calls a witness *244and lie is sworn generally in the case, he may he cross examined, or recalled and examined in behalf ^ £pe a(jvei>ge party, although he is interested in favor of such party. In other words, that when ■ a party has called and examined a witness in his own behalf, he cannot object to his examination by the adverse party, on the ground of interest.

But it by no means follows, that because a party waives all objection to the competency, of a wtiness? by calling and examining him, a party who cross examines a witness, or recalls him and examines him on his own behalf, when the witness has been permitted to testify against his objection, thereby waives his objection, or that this cross examination or reexamination of the witness, will make him competent, if otherwise incompetent.

The party merely submits to the decision of the court, without waiving the objection which he made to the witness on the ground of incompetency, and we think that he should not be held to have been made competent by this act of the party who objected to him.

For the reasons given in the case of *Carpenter vs.*Moser, above alluded to, we must hold Pettifer to be an incompetent witness, and that for the error of the judge in permitting him to testify, the judgment in this case must be reversed, and a new trial awarded.
March 20

, 2015

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Delivery of Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc.'s Operating Documents [ Docket No.

FAA

- 2015

- 0268 ]

To Whom it May Concern:

As you are aware, this office represents Rimkus Consulting Group

, Inc. ("Rimkus"), regarding the

above re ferenced Petition for Exemption

, in which Rimkus seeks regulatory relief to allow commercial

operation of small unmanned aerial vehicles. Please accept this letter as confirmation that the following

oper ating documents, which contain proprietary information, were hand

- delivered to Jake J. Troutman,

Program Analyst, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Safety, Airmen and Airspace Rules

Division , on March 19, 2015:

 Rimkus Consulting Group sUAS Aircraft Flight Manual

 Ri mkus Consulting Group sUAS Flight Operations Manual

If you have any other questions, or need any additional information to process this exemption

request, please c ontact the undersigned or John McGraw at:

John McGraw Aerospace Consulting, LLC

Phone: 54 0

- 219

- 1638

Email: john@jmacaerospace.aero

Very truly yours,

Matthew J. Clark

Mark E. McKinnon

Counsel for Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. Albany

Atlanta

Brussels

Denver

Los Angeles

Miami

New York 1676 International Drive • Penthouse

McLean, VA 22102

Tel: 703.336.8800

mckennalong.com Northern Virginia

Orange County

Rancho Santa Fe

San Diego

San Francisco

Seoul

Washington, DC

Mark E. McKi nnon

703.336.8714

Matthew J. Clark

703.336.871 Email Address

mmckinnon@mckennalong.com

mclark@mckennalong.com
**Exhibit 99.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofNUI Corporation (the "company") for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),I, John Kean, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)      thereport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

2)      theinformation contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the company.

/s/  John Kean, Jr.John Kean, Jr.President andChief Executive OfficerMay 15, 2003

**           **

Asigned copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to the company.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                Date

For additional information contact:                  February 13, 2001
         John W. Prosser, Jr.
         Senior Vice President
         Finance and Administration
         (626) 578-6803


                  Jacobs Signs Letter of Intent to Acquire Gibb

         PASADENA, CALIF. -- Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (NYSE: JEC) and
LawGibb  Group,  Inc.  announced  today that they have  entered into a Letter of
Intent  for the  acquisition  by Jacobs  of  LawGibb's  international  business,
operating under the Gibb name with revenues of approximately $100 million.  This
transaction  is  subject  to due  diligence,  the  negotiation  of a  definitive
agreement,  satisfaction  of  customary  closing  conditions,  and  approval  by
appropriate  governmental  authorities.
         Jacobs  President and CEO Noel Watson stated,  "This is another step in
our  implementation  of the  `multidomestic'  approach to serving  our  clients.
Jacobs and Gibb have strong ties to the  infrastructure  market. The addition of
Gibb offers the  opportunity to expand this business  internationally."  LawGibb
Chairman and CEO Bruce Coles,  added, "Gibb, with its stature in the engineering
sector and the suite of  professional  services it offers,  will match well with
Jacobs'  business  objectives  in the primary  international  markets  that both
companies serve."
         Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is one of the largest global engineering,
architecture,  technology,  and  construction  firms,  specializing  in the full
spectrum  of  project  delivery  services  including  engineering,  procurement,
construction, and maintenance. Gibb, a member of the LawGibb Group, is a leading
international engineering consultancy,  providing expert advice in the fields of
transportation,  civil  and  structural  engineering,  water  and  waste  water,
environmental and geotechnical services,  infrastructure,  building and building
services, information technology, defense, finance and commerce.
         Any  statements  made in this release that are not based on  historical
fact are forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements made in this
release represent the best judgment of the management of both Jacobs and LawGibb
as to what may occur in the future.  However, the actual outcome and results are
not guaranteed and are subject to certain risks,  uncertainties and assumptions,
and may differ  materially from what is expressed.  For a description of factors
that could cause actual results to differ  materially from such  forward-looking
statements, see the discussion under the section "Forward-Looking Statements and
Other Safe Harbor Applications" included in Management's Discussion and Analysis
filed as part of  Exhibit  13 to  Jacobs'  2000  Annual  Report on Form 10-K and
similar  "Forward-Looking  Statements" contained in Management's  Discussion and
Analysis  filed as part of Exhibit 13.01 to LawGibb's 1999 Annual Report on Form
10-K.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16** 
**- 1114** 

JAMES LAMAR FRASIER ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

CAROLINA CENTER FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ,
Defendant

– Appellee,

and

COUNTY OF CHARLESTON; CHARLESTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; AL CANNON, JR., in his official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston County; CHARLESTON COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; MITCH LUCAS, in his official capacity as Administrator of the Charleston County Detention Center; CORIZON HEALTH, INCORPORATED, f/k/a Prison Health Services, Incorporated; JOHN DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2; JOHN DOE 3; JOHN DOE 4; JOHN DOE 5,

Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 4:11

- cv
- 03431

- DCN )

Submitted : January 19, 2017 Decided: February 24, 2017

Before THACKER and HARRIS , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Brian C. Duffy, Thomas A. Limehouse, Jr., DUFFY & YOUNG, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stephen L. Brown, Russell G. Hines, YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS, LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

James L amar Fras i er appeals the district court’s order
denying his renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and
motion for a new trial, following the jury verdict in favor of

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC, in Frasier’ s medical
malpractice act ion. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Fras i er v.

Carolina Center for Occupational Health, LLC , No. 4:11

- cv
- 03431

-
DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 4, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED
May 15, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00298-CR

EX PARTE BERNARD MARIO CLARK

____________________

Today, the Court considered the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous 

and found it meritorious. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS in 

accordance with its opinion. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 498.0045. We further order that all 

costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant if he is not indigent. We 

further order this decision certified below for observance.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10374

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERRILL KENYON RUSSELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-18-1

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerrill Kenyon Russell pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a 

firearm by a convicted felon. The district court sentenced Russell to 180 

months in prison pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). As he 

did in the district court, Russell argues that his prior Texas conviction for 

burglary of a building was not a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term 

exceeding one year and could not be used to support application of the ACCA 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 8, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-10374 Document: 00512589087 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2014
No. 13-10374

enhancement in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) (i)-(ii) and U.S.S.G § 4B1.4. We review 

“the district court’s interpretation and application of the [ACCA] de novo.” 

United States v. Harrimon, 568 F.3d 531, 533 (5th Cir. 2009).

Russell concedes that he was convicted of burglary of a building, an

offense that is a state jail felony and punishable by imprisonment for no more 

than two years and no less than 180 days. Texas Penal Code § 12.44(a) 

provides discretion, however, for a court to punish a defendant convicted of a 

state jail felony by imposing a sentence as if the offense were a Class A 

misdemeanor. Russell’s sole argument is that because he was sentenced under 

§ 12.44(a), his offense was not a felony because it was not punishable by a term 

of imprisonment exceeding one year. In Harrimon, we held that a conviction 

was a “violent felony” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B) because the offense’s 

statutory maximum was two years in prison, even though the sentencing court 

exercised its discretion to allow the offense to be punished as a misdemeanor

under § 12.44. Harrimon, 568 F.3d at 533 n.3. Russell’s argument is without 

merit.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The 

motion for an extension of time in which to file a brief is DENIED. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-10374 Document: 00512589087 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2014
Presidential Documents

18517 

Federal Register 

Vol. 80, No. 66 

Tuesday, April 7, 2015 

Memorandum of March 27, 2015 

Delegation of Authority Under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, 

United States Code, I hereby order as follows: 

I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority to notify the Congress 

as required by section 1242(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) (the ‘‘Act’’). 

Any reference in this memorandum to the Act shall be deemed to be a 

reference to any future act that is the same or substantially the same as 

such provision. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE. 

Washington, March 27, 2015. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08088 

Filed 4–6–15; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with O0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 23, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 23, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0026. VERONICA COLEY v. LOUIS MILLER, JR..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2013CV239137
**Exhibit 12.3**
CERTIFICATIONS
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of SCOR, a French company(the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.        Dated: June 29, 2004          
Name: Denis Kessler