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

Cow.+ Attorney Kerr County Kerrville,

Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3050 Be: Chairman of the Demooratic Executiveccmnaittee of I[err county rating es clerk, supervisor

or judge at an eleotion. M have received

your letter of reoent dates requesting

our opinion upon the above stated question. If the ohairmanof the Demooratlo E*eoutive

Committee

of Kerr County is disqualified to rot as Clerk, supervisor or judge of an eleotion,suoh disqualifioation is by virtue of Article 2940,Revised Civil Statutesof Texas , -rJhioh

reads in part as follows: "No one who holds an offioe or profit or trust under the United States or this State, or in any city or town in this State, or within thirty (30) days after resigning or being dismissed from any such office,except a notary public,or who is a oandidatefor office,or who has not paid his poll tax, shall act as judge, clerk or supervisor of any election

. . ." This same identioal question

was passedupon by the Supreme Court of Texas in the case of Walker et al vs. ?dobley, 103 S.W. 490. The questionthere involved1~~88 "'Xas J. T. Dean disqualified from acting as presidingjudge of voting precinct No. 2 in said election by reason of his being at the time the ohairman of the Democratic

Executive

Cowittee of Henderson County?" JusticeBrown,

writing for the Court in this case, disposedof the above questionin the following words: "The ground of disqualificatisn urged is that the chairmanof an executive committee

of a political

party is an office of the State or county. There is nothing in the languageof tho law or the Constitution to supportthe contention. Dean was not disqualified to act as judge of the election."Also see Ex Parte %Iderson (Grim. App.) 102 S.7

727; 'Jallcer vs. Mobley (Civ,App.) 106 SW 511 Nallcer vs. Hopping, (Clv. App.) 226 S+7 ICC. Ne are aware of the holdingof the Ft. T?orth Court of Civil +pcals in the case of Priberg vs. Scurry, 33 SE (2nd) 762, wherein the court, in on&ruing the MandamusStatute (kt. 3113, Revised Civil Stctutos, lC25),held that the positions of chairmanof the Demooratic Bcccutive

Committee of a county and a precinctchairman are offices*thin the meaning d said Article 3113. However,in vim of the holding of the Supreme Court cf Texas in tho Valkor vs. Koblsy case, supra, this department adhcrcr to i-he lnri RS construed

by the SupremeCourt. I% are enclosing

herewithfor your information a copy of OpinionPO. o-2056, written upon a relatedquestion. Trusting

that the above answers your inquiry,

ws remain Very truly yours ATTORRSYGXWPAL OF ‘iEUS By /s/ 3. Eurlc Davis

D. krle DRV~Z. A?sis :..:.r'

t
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,353,528  
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      330,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        214,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,035,252
<PP&E>                                           3,787,802
<DEPRECIATION>                                     321,226
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  43,531,718 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,309,734
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            19,748
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    43,531,718
<SALES>                                            498,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   498,849
<CGS>                                              272,114
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,768,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   305,952
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 305,952    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,575,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0141 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-NM-092-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          22,080
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,056,252
<ALLOWANCES>                                    58,742
<INVENTORY>                                  1,693,753
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,822,213
<PP&E>                                       1,801,840
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,391,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,447,820
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,063,633
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       405,776
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,645,040
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,447,820
<SALES>                                      4,214,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,229,343
<CGS>                                        2,454,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,454,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,344,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              52,270
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                378,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                   139,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            239,088
<DISCONTINUED>                                (43,782)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   195,306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 8.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF KORNIT DIGITAL LTD.



|Name
    of Subsidiary                   |  | Jurisdiction
    of Organization |  | Ownership
    Interest
|---------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                                         |  |                                  |  |                       
|Kornit Digital Technologies
    Ltd.     |  | Israel                           |  | 100%                  
|Kornit Digital North America
    Inc.    |  | Delaware                         |  | 100%                  
|Kornit Digital Europe GmbH               |  | Germany                          |  | 100%                  
|Kornit Digital Asia Pacific
    Limited. |  | Hong Kong                        |  | 100%
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 55 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 55

      Honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 1997

  Mr. Radanovich (for himself and Mr. Bonior) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
      Honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.

Whereas one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry were victims of the 
        genocide perpetrated by the governments of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 
        to 1923, prior to the establishment of the Republic of Turkey;
Whereas each April, Members of Congress join the Armenian-American community in 
        remembrances across the United States to commemorate the Armenian 
        Genocide; and
Whereas by consistently remembering and openly condemning the atrocities 
        committed against Armenians, the Congress has helped to renew the 
        commitment of the people of the United States to oppose any and all 
        instances of genocide: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Congress joins the Armenian-American community in 
        honoring the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide; 
        and
            (2) the United States should encourage the Republic of 
        Turkey to take all appropriate steps to acknowledge and 
        commemorate the atrocity committed against the Armenian 
        population of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923.
                                 <all>
```
H. J. Res. 32

One Hundred Fifth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven

Joint Resolution

To consent to certain amendments enacted by the Legislature of the State of

Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, as required

by section 4 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the admission

of the State of Hawaii into the Union’’, approved March 18, 1959

(73 Stat. 4), the United States consents to the following amendments

to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, adopted by the

State of Hawaii in the manner required for State legislation:

(1) Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1993.

(2) Act 37 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1994.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Exhibit 31.1





I, Arnold W. Donald, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this amendment to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Carnival Corporation;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and


3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.








Date: October 5, 2016





By: /s/ Arnold W. Donald


Arnold W. Donald


President and Chief Executive Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1205

STEVEN ROLLAKANTI , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL; WILLIAM FEDERICK; ANDRENE TOWSEN; JOHNY NILES , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Paula Xinis , District Judge. ( 8:16

- cv
- 02914

- PX )

Submitted : April 20, 2017 Decided: April 25, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Steven Rollakanti, Appellant Pro Se. Robert R. Niccolini, OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Steven Rollakanti seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to appoint counsel . This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certai n interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The order Rollakanti seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or col lateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 proce ss.

DISMISSED
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Corliss RUSH, Appellant.

ED 104396

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

FILED: September 19, 2017

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied November 13, 2017

Application for Transfer Denied January 23, 2018

Srikant Chigurupati, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

Joshua D. Hawley, Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.

ORDER

Corliss Rush appeals from the trial court’s entry of judgment .and sentence after a jury found him guilty of attempted statutory rape in the'first degree. We have reviewed the briefs, of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that no *750reversible error occurred. An extended opinion would have no jurisprudential .purpose. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Criminal Procedure 30.25(b) (2017).
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-21-2002

In Re Albert Heaton

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 01-4002

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"In Re Albert Heaton " (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 528.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/528
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-4002

 

IN RE: ALBERT S. HEATON,

Debtor

ALBERT S. HEATON

v.

FORD MOTOR CREDIT

ROBERT H. HOLBER, ESQUIRE

FREDERIC J. BAKER, ESQUIRE,

Trustees

Albert S. Heaton, 

Appellant

 

No. 01-4003

 

IN RE:

DARLENE A. HELEVA,

Debtor

Darlene A. Heleva, 

Appellant

 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil Nos. 00-cv-03433 & 00-cv-03434)

District Judge: Honorable Jay C. Waldman
2

 

Argued June 28, 2002

Before: AMBRO, STAPLETON and CUDAHY*, Circuit Judges.

(Filed: August 21, 2002)

Dexter K. Case, Esquire (Argued)

541 Court Street

Reading, PA 19601

Attorney for Appellant

Kevin H. Buraks, Esquire

David E. Stern, Esquire (Argued)

Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen

1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorneys for Appellee

 

OPINION

 

 

* Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the for the Seventh

Circuit, sitting by designation.

AMBRO, Circuit Judge:

For essentially the reasons set out in Judge Waldman’s comprehensive

Memorandum Orders, dated October 1, 2001, and September 28, 2001, respectively, we
3

affirm the District Court’s judgments.

 

TO THE CLERK:

Please file the foregoing Opinion.

By the Court,

/s/ Thomas L. Ambro

 Circuit Judge
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Rulemaking

How to Submit Comments

 The Department will accept comments, data, and information regarding the ANOPR after the 

public meeting, but no later than November 12, 2004. See section IV.D, “Submission of Comments,” of 

the Federal Register document for details. 69 FR 454990 (July 29, 2004) 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number EE-RM/STD-01-375 and/or 

RIN number 1904-AB09, by any of the following methods: 

• E-mail: commercialairconditioner.anopr@ee.doe.gov. Include EE-RM/STD-01-375 and/or RIN 

1904-AB09 in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE-2J, ANOPR for Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, EERM/STD-01-375 and/or RIN 1904-AB09, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 

20585-0121. Please submit one signed original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Room 1J-018, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20585. 

Telephone: (202) 586-2945. Please submit one signed original. 

 Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. For detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see section IV of the Federal Register 

document (Public Participation). 69 FR 45499 (July 29, 2004) 

 

 Docket: For access to the docket, to read background documents or comments received, go to the 

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1J-018 (Resource Room of the Building 

Technologies Program), 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, (202) 586-9127, between 

9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda 

Edwards-Jones on (202) 586-2945 for additional information regarding visiting the Resource Room. 

Please note: The Department’s Freedom of Information Reading Room (formerly Room 1E-190 at the 

Forrestal Building) is no longer housing rulemaking materials. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: 

WEBSITE: http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ac_hp.html

CONTACT: James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585-0121, 

(202) 586-8654. E-mail: jim.raba@ee.doe.gov. Francine Pinto, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of 

General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9507. Email: Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov. 

EE-RM-STD-01-375 COMMENT 25E
Exhibit 32.1


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


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bay Resources Ltd.
(the "Company") for the three months ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), the
undersigned, Joseph Gutnick, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(1)      The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


November 11, 2005


                                        /s/ Joseph I. Gutnick
                                        ---------------------
                                        Joseph I. Gutnick
                                        Chairman of the Board, President and
                                        Chief Executive Officer



                                                                              20
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JEFFREY TILLMAN,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, PENNSYLVANIA 

BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, 

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF 

LEHIGH COUNTY,

Appellees

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 30 MAP 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2018, upon consideration of the Motion to 

Dismiss for Mootness and the “Suggestion of Mootness,” this appeal is DISMISSED.