alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued November 19, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00455-CV

———————————

IN RE STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, has filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to have this Court vacate the respondent 

district court’s order which denied a plea in abatement.

1

 

1 The underlying case is Giselle Fuller, Individually, and as Next Friend of A.S. and 

S.S., minors, Joseph Siller and Egla Fuller v. Fredis Leonel Ruiz Nataren and 

State Farm Automobile Insurance Company, cause number 2019-14015, pending 

in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Dedra Davis

presiding.
2

We deny relator’s petition for a writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Hightower.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet and statement of operations for Accufacts Pre-Employment Screening, Inc.
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         234,354
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  739,743
<ALLOWANCES>                                    55,434
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               928,518
<PP&E>                                         673,016
<DEPRECIATION>                                (163,843)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,591,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          864,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        66,275
<OTHER-SE>                                     624,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,591,199
<SALES>                                      4,209,629
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,209,629
<CGS>                                        3,100,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,546,564
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                (6,284)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,418
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (353,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (13,700)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (367,346)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (367,346)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)



</TABLE>
-6-

QUESTION: The definition of ignitable liquids excludes aqueous solutions containing less than 

24 percent alcohol by volume (4OCFR 261.21(a) (l)). How does the Agency define "aqueous'?

ANSWER: EPA does not define “aqueous” in the regulation, nor does it give guidance in any 

preamble. As a rule-of-thumb, any solution which is greater than 60-70 percent water should be 

considered “aqueous.” Conversely, any solution which contains less than 60 percent water is 

nonaqueous.

SOURCE: Jim Poppiti

BOOZ~ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC. FAXBACK 

12142
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                           0001004605
<NAME>                                          Augment Systems, Inc.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         34,420
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               34,420
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 34,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,723,835
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                      118,989
<OTHER-SE>                                  1,808,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   34,420
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    0
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               70,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     0
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (70,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 63 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 63

   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish certain 
family separation as an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 2023

 Ms. Jackson Lee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish certain 
family separation as an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and 
                          for other purposes.

    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 ``Grant Relief for American Children's 
Elevation Act of 2023'' or the ``GRACE Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTIONAL AND EXTREMELY UNUSUAL HARDSHIP.

    Section 240A(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1229b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(7) Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship defined.--
        In this subsection, the term `exceptional and extremely unusual 
        hardship' shall include hardship resulting from separating a 
        family member who is a United States citizen, a lawful 
        permanent resident or an individual lawfully admitted to the 
        United States and a family member who is subject to deportation 
        or removal from the United States.''.
                                 <all>
```
From: Scott Brown <sbrown@cleanair.com>

Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:07 PM To: Green, David A. Cc: putney.david@epa.gov Subject: RE: Method 428/429 glassware soak
Mr. Green, One more question regarding the combination of CARB 428 and 429 and the designated impinger trains. 428 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg S mith with the first impinger being a knock out impinger, second containing 100 ml DI H2O, third empty and fo urth silica gel. 429 calls for 4 impingers, all modified Greenberg S mith with the first two impingers each containing 100 ml of 3mM NaHCO3 / 2.4 mM Na2CO3, third empty and fourth silica gel. I have been planning on combining these by using fo ur impingers: knockout, modified, modified, modified w ith impingers 1 and 2 continaing the NaHCO3 / Na2CO3 solution, the third empty and the fourth silica gel

. Is this acceptable?

Scott Brown CleanAir 847-654-4544

-----Original Message----- From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 7:03 AM To: sbrown@cleanair.com Cc: putney.david@epa.gov Subject: Method 428/429 glassware soak

Mr. Brown:
We recommend doing the five minute soak to ensure t he best quality data. Even though CARB 428/429 don't require it, those methods also use different solvents so it makes sen se for the procedures to be somewhat different.
David Green RTI International 919.316.3412 www.rti.org -----Original Message----- From: Scott Brown [mailto:sbrown@cleanair.com] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:51 PM To: Green, David A. Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429 Thank you for your quick response. To verify. CARB Methods 428 and 429 call for rinsi ng all components of the train three times with therecovery solvents but do not require a 5 minute soa k

(in triplicate) of the connecting glassware with th e final rinse solvent as Method 23 does. Since we are using CARB 428 / 429 per the ICR shoul d we follow the method(s) and not soak, just rinse?

Scott Brown Project Manager CleanAir -----Original Message----- From: Green, David A. [mailto:green@rti.org] Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:43 PM To: Scott Brown Subject: RE: solvents for M428/429

Mr. Brown: The use of acetone/toluene for recovery is acceptab le. Basically, you should follow Method 23 recovery but may skip the methylene chloride step. Please let me know if any other questions arise.
David Green RTI International 919.316.3412 www.rti.org

--
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6434 

To require the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to 

publish an annual Financial Trend Analysis describing illicit financial 

schemes and methods related to the trafficking of fentanyl and other 

synthetic opioids, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. PFLUGER (for himself and Ms. DE LA CRUZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To require the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network to publish an annual Financial Trend Analysis 

describing illicit financial schemes and methods related 

to the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, 

and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Combating Fentanyl 

5 and Financial Crimes Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6434 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK RE2 PORT REQUIREMENT TO PUBLISH A FINAN3 CIAL TREND ANALYSIS DESCRIBING ILLICIT 

4 FINANCIAL SCHEMES AND METHODS RE5 LATED TO THE TRAFFICKING OF FENTANYL 

6 AND OTHER SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS. 

7 (a) REPORT REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 180 

8 days after the date of the enactment of this section and 

9 annually thereafter for 5 years, the Director of the Finan10 cial Crimes Enforcement Network shall publish, and make 

11 available on the website of the Financial Crimes Enforce12 ment Network, a Financial Trend Analysis describing il13 licit financial schemes and methods related to the traf14 ficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. 

15 (b) DISTRIBUTION TO FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.— 

16 The Director shall distribute the analysis described in sub17 section (a) to financial institutions (as defined in section 

18 5312(a) of title 31, United States Code). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, Arthur C. Wiener, Chief Executive Officer of Galey & Lord,
Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.(S)1350, as adopted
pursuant to (S)906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending March
29, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Arthur C. Wiener
-----------------------
Arthur C. Wiener
Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2003
#### Michael C. CHRISTEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-72868

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted September 26, 2017 *

OCTOBER 3, 2017

Michael C. Christen, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.

Melissa Briggs, Arthur Thomas Catte-rall, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, William J. Wilkins, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC, for Respondent-Appel-lee.

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael C. Christen appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s decision, following a bench trial, upholding the Commissioner of Internal Revenue’s determination of deficiencies and penalties for the tax years 1999, 2000, and 2002. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a). We review de novo conclusions of law and for clear error questions of fact. *Hardy v. Comm’r,*181 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.

The Tax Court properly upheld the deficiencies for tax. years 1999, 2000, and 2002 because the Commissioner presented “some substantive evidence” that Christen failed to report income, and Christen failed to submit any relevant evidence, including establishing the existence of a settlement agreement, that the “deficiency was arbitrary or erroneous.” *Id.*at 1004-05 (Commissioner’s deficiency determination is presumptively correct, and it is incumbent on taxpayer to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence).

The Tax Court properly found that penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6662 were appropriate for Christen’s delinquent and understated taxes. *See*26 U.S.C. § 6651(a)(1) (addition appropriate when taxpayer fails.to file taxes unless such failure was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect); *id.*§ 6662(a), (d)(1) (authorizing penalty for substantial understatement of taxes when understatement exceeds the greater of ten percent of the tax required to be shown on the tax return or $5,000).

We reject as without merit Christen’s contentions that the Commissioner engaged in spoliation of evidence.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT







I, Hanwook Bae, President of MB Tech, Inc. ( 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 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended

December 31, 2003 (the " Report") fully complies with the requirements of

Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C.

78m or 78o (d); and



-    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material

respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:     May 3, 2004





/s/ Hanwook Bae

Hanwook Bae

President/Director
#### * Jonas Clark, Judge, &c., *versus*John Lowe.

in debt on an administration bond, the defendant, who was an original obligor, was described as trader *and*administrator, &c., and held good.

The defendant was summoned, by the name of “ *John Lowe,*of, &c., trader, and surviving administrator of the goods and estate

*423which were of *Simeon Fernald,*late of, &c., deceased,” to answer to the plaintiff, judge of probate for the county of *York,*in a plea of debt, for that the said *John Lowe,*with other persons named, and who have since deceased, on, &c., at, &c., by their bond of tho" date, sealed with their seals, and in Court to be produced, bounc themselves to *Edward Cutis,*Esq., then judge of probate, &c.

The defendant, after oyer of the bond declared on, demurred to the declaration, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer.

*By the Court.*

The objection is that the defendant is sued as administrator, while the declaration is against him personally on his own bond. But the objection is not well founded. He is described as *J. L.,*trader, *and*surviving administrator, &c. This last is a true description of the defendant, and if it were not, it might bt rejected as surplusage, *(a)*

*Bradbury*for the plaintiff

*Freeman*for the defendant.

*Respondant ouster awarded.*

(a)

*Talmage*vs. *Chapel & Al.*16 *Mass. Rep.*71. — *Buffum*vs. *Chadwick,*8 *Mass Rep.*103.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

P ursuantt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 6 36 (c )( 1), the part i es consent ed t o p roce ed ** before am agi stra t e j ud ge.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T H A RV EY W I LLA RD M ERRI W EA TH ER, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. UN I TE D STATE S P AROLE C OMMI S S I ON , R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 09- 16481 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c v - 0 1 9 7 7 - J FM ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn F . M oul ds , M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng * * S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 *** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H arvey W i l l ar d M erri w ea ther, a f eder al pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the



# FI LED OC T 29 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 16481 2 di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s pe t i t i on f oraw r i tof

m a nda m us t o c om pe l the U ni t e d S t a t e s P a r ol e C om m i s s i on ( U S P C ) t o di s m i s s apa r ol e vi ol a t orw a rr a nt l odge d a s ade t a i ne r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w f or a n abus e of

di s c r e t i on the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of m a nda m us r e l i e f

, a nd r e vi e w de n o v o w h e th e rth e r e q u ir e m e n ts f o rm a n d a m u s r e lie f

h a v e b e e n m e t. John son v. R e illy , 3 4 9 F. 3 d1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 4 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) . W e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyc o n c lu d e dth a t th e U S P C d idn o t v io la te M e rr i w e a the r ’ s due pr oc e s s r i ght s be c aus e he i s note nt i t l e d t o ahe a r i ng unt i l the p a r o le v io la to rw a rr a n t is e x e c u te d . Se e Mo o d yv . D a g g e tt , 429 U . S . 78, 86- 89 ( 1976) ( e xe c ut i on of

the w a rr a nti s the “ ope r a t i ve e ve nttr i gge r i ng a nyl os s of lib e rtya tte n d a n t up o n p a r o le r e v o c a tio n ” ) ; Sm i th v. U . S. P arole Com m ’n , 875 F . 2d 1 3 6 1 , 1 3 6 4 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ) ( U S P C h a s th e s o le au th o r ityto d e c id e w h e n ap a r o le vi ol at i on w arrantw i l l be execut ed). F urther, M erri w ea ther i s notent i t l ed t o rel i ef fo r d el ay i n th e co n du cto f th e d i sp o si t i o n al rev i ew o f th e p aro l e d et ai n er, b ecau se h e h a s r e c e iv e ds u c h r e v ie w a n dh a s n o t s h o w n p r e ju d ic e o rb a df

a ith . Se e P oy nor v. U . S. P arole Com m ’n , 878 F . 2d 275, 277 ( 9th C i r . 1989) . A c c or di ngl y , de ni a l of M e rr iw e a th e r ’s p e titio n w a s p r o p e r . M erri w ea ther’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                                  MOSSIMO, INC.

                            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 Mossimo, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I Manuel Marrero, Chief
Financial 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:

         (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, results of
                  operations, and cash flows of the Company.


/s/      Manuel Marrero
-----------------------
         Manuel Marrero
         Chief Financial Officer
         August 8, 2002
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


We  consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form
S-8  No. 333-89531) pertaining to the Garden.com, Inc. Amended and Restated 1996
Stock  Option/Stock  Issuance  Plan  and in Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-89519)  pertaining to the Garden.com, Inc. 1999 Employee Stock Purchase Plan
of the Company of our report dated July 28, 2000 (except for Note 10 as to which
the  date  is  September 28, 2000), with respect to the financial statements and
schedules  of the Company included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended  June  30,  2000.


                                   /s/  Ernst  &  Young  LLP

                                   ERNST  &  YOUNG  LLP


Austin,  Texas
October  13,  2000