alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Denied and Opinion Filed August 22 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 1 6
- 0 0 979
- CV
EX PARTE TRACY NIXON , RELATOR Original Proceeding from the 3 01st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 00
- 14691
- T 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justice s Lang and Brown

Opinion by Justice Lang Before the Court is relator Tracy Nixon’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. On the
record before the Court, we cannot conclude r elator is entitled to relief. Th e record filed by relator does not include sufficient proof that relator is currently confined or restrained. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(D), 52.7(a). Although the appendix to the petition includes the trial court’s
order for iss uance of capias and relator’s unsworn statement that he is confined, neither provide the proof of present confinement required by rule 52. See, e.g., In re Miller , 05

- 14

- 01023

- CV, 2014 WL 3882317, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) (m em. op.) (denying petition and holding that website print out from Collin County Sheriff’s Department insufficient to provide proof of confinement).2

Moreover, the petition does not provide the Court with a sufficient record under which the Court could prop erly review the contempt order. T he petition for writ of habeas corpus is not certified as required by the Texa s Rules of Appellate Procedure, does not include a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from the proceeding at which the r elator was held in contempt, and is supported by documents that are not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1),(2), 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A). Because the record in an original proceeding is assem bled by the parties, this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the record. It is relator’s burden as the party seeking relief to provide the Court with a sufficient
record. Walker v. Packer , 827 S .W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Because he has not done so here , we must deny the petition without prejudice to filing a properly supported petition.

/ S / Douglas Lang DOUGLAS LANG JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 395 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 395

    To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay 
                          adjustment in 2010.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2009

Mr. Burton of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred 
   to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To prevent Members of Congress from receiving any automatic pay 
                          adjustment in 2010.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the Congressional COLA Act''.

SEC. 2. NO AUTOMATIC PAY ADJUSTMENT FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN 2010.

    For purposes of the provision of law amended by section 
704(a)(2)(B) of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 (5 U.S.C. 5318 note), no 
adjustment under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
considered to have taken effect in fiscal year 2010 in the rates of pay 
under the General Schedule.
                                 <all>
```
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3718 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make residents of Puerto 

Rico eligible for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 1, 2009 

Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. MICA, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, 

Mr. SERRANO, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, 

Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, and Mr. CROWLEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

residents of Puerto Rico eligible for the refundable portion of the child tax credit. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REFUNDABLE CHILD TAX CREDIT ALLOWABLE 

4 TO RESIDENTS OF PUERTO RICO WITH LESS 

5 THAN 3 CHILDREN. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 24(d) of 

7 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to portion 

8 of credit refundable) is amended by inserting at the end 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3718 IH

1 the following new sentence: ‘‘For purposes of this para2 graph, taxable income shall be computed without regard 

3 to section 933.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

5 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

6 December 31, 2008. 

7 (c) APPLICABILITY.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Any credit allowable by rea9 son of the amendment made by subsection (a) shall 

10 not exceed the applicable percentage of the amount 

11 of credit which would otherwise be allowable under 

12 section 24(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

13 1986 (without regard to this subsection). 

14 (2) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—The applicable 

15 percentage shall be determined as follows: 

In the case of any taxable The applicable 

year beginning in: percentage is: 

2009 ................................................................................................... 20

2010 ................................................................................................... 40

2011 ................................................................................................... 60

2012 ................................................................................................... 80

2013 and thereafter ........................................................................... 100. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**EXHIBIT 21.1****SUBSIDIARIES OF COMPANY**     **Company**         Kabushiki Kaisha Photon Dynamics Japan 100%Photon Dynamics Korea, Inc. Korea 100%Photon Dynamics Canada, Inc., formerly known as ImageProcessing Systems, Inc. Canada 100%Intelligent Reasoning Systems, Inc. United States 100%Akcron Corporation, Ltd. Korea 100%Photon Dynamics International Trading (Shanghai) Co.,Ltd. China 100%Photon Dynamics Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. China 100%Intelligent Reasoning Systems Intl KK Korea 100%Photon Dynamics Nova Scotia Company Canada 100%The subsidiaries listed are all included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company.
#### *Leslie & Calhoun vs. James Taggart et al. sureties of Jno.*Taggart, *Sheriff.*

The sureties to a Sheriff's bond are not liable for the costs, incurred in establishing a *milla, bona,*return against their principal.

*Before*O’Neall, J. Abbeville, *Fall Term,,*1841.

This was a suggestion filed by the plaintiffs, to recover, on the bond of Jno. Taggart, late Sheriff of Abbeville district, the costs incurred by them in establishing a *nulla bona*against him.

The presiding Judge ruled, that the sureties were not liable for such costs, and therefore quashed the suggestion. From this decision, the plaintiffs appealed, and moved to reverse the same, on the ground of error, in the decision of his Honor, the presiding Judge.

Wilson, for the motion,

cited and relied on 2. Yol. Stat. 1106, Marg. P. 1120 and 1 Hill, 398.

Wardlaw, and Perrin, contra:

Submitted the case without argument, or reference to authority.

Curia, *per*

O’Neall J.

In this case it is only necessary to look into the defendant’s bond, to decide that they are not liable for the costs of cases, to establish a return of *"nulla bona,”*against their principal. The condition is “that Jno. Taggart shall well and truly perform the duties of the office of Sheriff, of Abbeville district, as now, or hereafter required by law, during the whole period he may continue in office.” Under it they are liable for money, by him collected and not paid over, and for all damages sustained by his failing to perform his duty. But they have not undertaken to pay the costs of cases, which might be brought against their principal, and much less have they undertaken to pay the costs which may be incurred, in establishing a *nidia bona.*The Legislature required the plaintiffs to obtain that evidence, before they could resort to the sureties. It was one of the guards interposed between them and the Sheriff’s creditors. But there is nothing in that which can make them liable. They have the right to say there is our bond, according to it we will pay, beyond it we will pay nothing. The motion is dismissed.

JOHN BELTON O’NEALL.

We concur: Richard Gantt, J. S. Richardson, Josiah J. Evans, B. J. Earle, A. P. Butler.
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





In
      connection with the Quarterly report of Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul S.
      Lipschutz, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(3)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and





(4)
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                Company.





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





Date:
                July 13, 2007
            By:*/s/
                PAUL S. LIPSCHUTZ*Paul
                S. LipschutzPrincipal
                Financial Officer
exv4w2






Exhibit 4.2




	 	 	 
	Number	 	Shares
	SPECIMEN

	 	SPECIMEN






QLIK TECHNOLOGIES INC.




Common Stock

$.0001 Par Value Per Share



SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER



     This certifies that SPECIMEN is the owner of SPECIMEN (XXXXX) shares, fully paid and
nonassessable, of the Common Stock of QLIK TECHNOLOGIES INC., a Delaware corporation, transferable
only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by attorney upon surrender
of this certificate properly endorsed.



     This certificate and the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of
Delaware and to the Certificate of Incorporation and the By-laws of the Corporation, in each case
as from time to time amended.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, QLIK TECHNOLOGIES INC., has caused this certificate to be signed by its
duly authorized officers as of
this            day of      , 20     .



	 	 	 

	 
	 

	 	 
	President

	 	Secretary or Treasurer






[seal]



 









 





Restrictions on Transfer





The corporation has more than one class of stock authorized to be issued. The corporation
will furnish without charge to each stockholder upon written request a copy of the full text
of the preferences, voting powers, qualifications and special and
relative rights of the shares of each class of stock (and any series thereof) authorized to be issued by the
corporation as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation and
amendments thereto filed with the Secretary of the state of Delaware.



Assignment




          For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers to
shares of the capital stock represented by this certificate, and
hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints
                         
               
               
               
attorney to transfer such stock on the books of the Corporation with full power of substitution in
the premises.




          Dated            ,




	 	 	 

	 

	 	 
	 

	 	Signature of
registered owner
corresponding
exactly to the name
of such owner as
written on the face
of this
certificate.
	 
	 	 
	 

Witness
#### M. C. Davis, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Thomas W. Sims, administrator, defendant in error.

Where the clerk’s certificate to the bill of exceptions is not signed, but has simply the seal of the court thereto attached, the writ of error will be dismissed. (R.)

Bill of exceptions. Certificate. Seal. Practice in the Supreme Court. January Term, 1875.

The above head-note explains itself.

L. L. Middlebrooks, for plaintiff in error.

E. Womaoic, for defendant.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10612

Summary Calendar

 

DENNIS RAY WALKER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALEXANDER M. KALMANOV,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:97-CV-179

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

January 31, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Ray Walker (#655576), a state prisoner, has appealed

the district court's order granting the motion for summary judgment

of Dr. Alexander M. Kalmanov and the district court's judgment

dismissing Walker's civil rights action as frivolous.

Walker contends that the district court erred in dismissing

his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) because he was not

proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP") in the district court. The

district court's error was harmless. Section 1915A(b)(1), 28

U.S.C., requires the dismissal of frivolous claims and applies
No. 00-10612

-2-

regardless whether the prisoner has paid a filing fee. See Ruiz v.

United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Walker contends that the district court erred in granting Dr.

Kalmanov's motion for summary judgment. Walker complains that Dr.

Kalmanov "continually ejected" Walker from the Medical Department;

that Dr. Kalmanov altered his medical records; that Dr. Kalmanov

removed him from the Tele-Med program, preventing him from having

access to specialists; that Dr. Kalmanov cancelled medications

which would have relieved his pain and suffering; that Dr. Kalmanov

told another doctor that Walker was a "'troublemaker'"; that Dr.

Kalmanov overprescribed an antibiotic in order to clear his

condition prior to an examination by Dr. Kalmanov's supervisor;

that Dr. Kalmanov's affidavit and the district court's opinion were

inaccurate in failing to discuss examinations of Walker by Dr.

Kalmanov on May 14, 1996, July 2, 1996, August 22, 1996, and

September 11, 1996; and that Dr. Kalmanov's supervisor changed

Walker's medication after examining Walker in March 1997. The

summary judgment evidence does not show that Dr. Kalmanov was

deliberately indifferent to Walker's serious medical needs. See

Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir. 1997); Varnado v.

Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Walker argues that Dr. Kalmanov retaliated against him by

ejecting him from the infirmary after his discussion with Walker

regarding Walker's pending civil action against Dr. Kalmanov.

Walker has failed to present summary judgment evidence showing that

there is a genuine issue regarding the questions whether Dr.

Kalmanov was motivated to retaliate against him and whether Dr.
No. 00-10612

-3-

Kalmanov's ejection of Walker from the infirmary was materially

adverse. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir.

1997); Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995). 

The judgment is AFFIRMED.
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819 

DCN: SE03516

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
1 of 2

EPA’s Potential Reinterpretation of the Clean Water Act TAS Provision

– Meeting with

Members of the Western Governors’ Association

Thursday, June 18, 2015

12 : 15

– 1 : 0 0 p.m. EDT Meeting Summary

EPA Moderator s : Mark Rupp, EPA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations

Ellen Gilinsky

, Senior Policy Advisor, EPA Office of Water Ken Kopocis, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water

EPA Presenter: Fred Leutner, EPA Office of Science and Technology Participants: Senior officials from the states of Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma,

South Dakota, Wyoming Staff representatives from the Western Governors’ Association and the

Western States Water Council

The potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act was o ne of two topics on the agenda. Two documents that were provided to invitees in advance of the meeting are available in the docket for this rulemaking:

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Overview, p repared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May 2015.

 Clean Water Act Tribal Provision: Discussion Paper, p repared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water and Office of General Counsel, May

2015.

Ellen Gilinsky gave welcoming remarks. Fre d Leutner gave a brief overview of EPA’s potential reinterpretation of the tribal authority provision of the Clean Water Act

.

Ken Kopocis then invited questions and comments from the participants. He responded to these

issues consistent with the materials in the documents identified above. The following is a list of questions and issues raised:

 Two states expressed a desire for EPA’s proposed action to be explicit about how tribes without reservations would be handled under the revised interpretation.

 One participant requested that the proposal explicitly describe whether the potential reinterpretation would affect implementation of section 10211(b) of the 2005 federal SAFETEA statute in the state of Oklahoma.

 One participant said that EPA should forma lly consult with the state and a tribe before the tribe applies for TAS.

 One participant discussed a federal public law applicable to the state of Colorado, asserting that it means that the state retains authority over fee lands in the Southern Ute reservation, and asked whether the potential reinterpretation of TAS would affect that

situation.2 of 2

 One participant indicated that the state attorney general has concerns about tribal jurisdict ion over nonmember

- owned fee lands.

 One participant asked for more details on how EPA consulted and coordinated with tribes as compared to states in preparing the proposal.
# National Guard Bureau Identifies Army National Guard Soldiers  Killed in Texas Helicopter Crash

**24-006** |  March 10, 2024    

Seal of the National Guard Bureau **(Photo by National Guard Bureau)**

ARLINGTON, Va. — The National Guard Bureau announced today the deaths of two Army National Guard Soldiers killed in a helicopter crash Friday while supporting the federal Southwest border mission.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Casey Frankoski, 28, of Rensselaer, N.Y., and Chief Warrant Officer 2 John Grassia, 30, of Schenectady, N.Y., died when their UH-72 Lakota helicopter crashed near Rio Grande City, Texas, at approximately 2:50 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on March 8, 2024.

Frankoski and Grassia were assigned to Detachment 2, Company A, 1st of the 224th Aviation Regiment, New York Army National Guard.

A U.S. Border Patrol agent also died in the crash and another New York Army National Guard Soldier was seriously injured.

The cause of the crash is under investigation.

For additional information contact: Joint Task Force North Public Affairs at (915) 497-0655or email ryan.t.wierzbicki.mil@army.mil; or the New York National Guard Public Affairs Office at (518) 786-4581 or email ng.ny.nyarng.list.mnpa@army.mil.
From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> 

To: Robin Dunkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/15/2011 11:14 AM 

Subject: RIN 2060-AQ41 

________________________________________

Hi Robin, 

Can you have OP upload this into ROCIS? I'm opened the package up for amendment. 

Regards,

Cortney
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44728

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

JENNIFER M. SEVERIN

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 597

Filed: September 26, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Teton County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller , District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of

sentence, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Bois e, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jennifer M. Severin pled guilty to one count of domestic battery with traumatic injury

,

Idaho Code § § 18

- 903(a), 18

- 918(2) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of six years,

with a minimum period of confinement of two years , and retai ned jurisdiction. The district court

later relinquished jurisdiction. Severin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of

sentence, which the district court denied. Severin appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton , 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee , 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In2 presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the

motion. State v. Huffman , 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the

record, including any new information submitted with Severin ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Severin ’s

Rule 35 motion is affir med.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

Certification pursuant toSection 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code

 

I, Kirk Loevner, the ChiefExecutive Officer and President of ScreamingMedia Inc. (the “Company”), certifythat (i) the Company’s 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such 10-Q fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofScreamingMedia Inc.

 

 
| /s/ Kirk  Loevner |   |
|-------------------|--------|

Kirk Loevner, CEO &President

Date: August 14, 2002

 

 

----