alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                      R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO HOLDINGS, INC.

   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Andrew J. Schindler, Chief
Executive Officer, of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc. ("RJR"), hereby
certifies, to his knowledge, that:

1)    RJR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002,
      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 RJR's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
      ended December 31, 2002, fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of RJR.

      EXECUTED this 3rd day of March, 2003.


                                           /s/ Andrew J. Schindler
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Andrew J. Schindler, Chairman of the
                                             Board, President and Chief
                                             Executive Officer of R.J. Reynolds
                                             Tobacco Holdings, Inc.
No. 11-11150.

#### Clutter *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-75]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act, including whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C.      1843). Any request for a 
hearing must be accompanied by a statement of the reasons a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identifying 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, summarizing the 
evidence that would be presented at a hearing, and indicating how the 
party commenting would be aggrieved by approval of the proposal. Unless 
otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the 
United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than January 28, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Zane R. Kelley, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303:
    1. Southern Security Financial Corporation, Hollywood, Florida; to 
become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting 
shares of Southern Security Bank Corporation, Hollywood, Florida, and 
thereby indirectly acquire Southern Security Bank, Hollywood, Florida.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 30, 
1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-75 Filed 1-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CC R ESTAURANT, LP AND CAFÉ

C ENTRAL

,

Appellant s

,

v.

SABINA OLAGUE

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 285

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 9DCV 0613 )

O R D E R

Appellants CC Restaurant, L.P. and Cafe Central filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on

November 8, 2019 and on the same day, Appellants timely filed a motion for extension of time

to file the notice of appeal. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.3. The extension motion stated that the

extension was necessary because trial counsel had inadvertently miscalculated the time to file the

appeal as 30 days, rather than 20 days. See Tex.R.App.P. 26.1(b)(setting 20

- day time peri od to

file appeal in accelerated appeal).

Counsel for Appellee Sabina Olague filed an opposition to the extension of time request,

arguing that trial counsel's explanation was not verified by affidavit or otherwise, and that the

excuse provided was insuf ficient to grant the time extension. In response, Appellants filed an

amended motion for extension of time curing the verification defect.

We find that the allegations in the motion for extension of time have been sufficiently

supported by evidence and t he untimely filing was not the result of deliberate or intentional

noncompliance but was the result of inadvertence, mistake, or mischance. See Hone v. Hanfin,

104 S.W.3d 884, 886

- 87 (Tex. 2003). The motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The

record is d ue November 23, 2019

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 3 th day of November , 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox , JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>         5

<MULTIPLIER>      1



<S>               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>     3-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           MAY-31-2000

<PERIOD-END>                                Feb-29-2000

<CASH>                                          1075441

<SECURITIES>                                    8419788

<RECEIVABLES>                                    458928

<ALLOWANCES>                                          0

<INVENTORY>                                       74236

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               10265697

<PP&E>                                          1149197

<DEPRECIATION>                                   819967

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12183506

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            772072

<BONDS>                                               0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0

<PREFERRED>                                           0

<COMMON>                                          30707

<OTHER-SE>                                     10938488

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12183506

<SALES>                                         2013652

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                2013652

<CGS>                                            598364

<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   1358787

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  177437

<INCOME-TAX>                                      53000

<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              124437

<DISCONTINUED>                                        0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0

<CHANGES>                                             0

<NET-INCOME>                                     124437

<EPS-BASIC>                                         .04

<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .04




</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-93,046-01

EX PARTE EDWARD MEADOR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1643105-A IN THE 177TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY 

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Applicant was convicted of robbery - bodily injury and sentenced to two years’

imprisonment. Applicant did not file a direct appeal. Applicant filed this application for a writ of

habeas corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07. 

After a review of the record, we find that Applicant’s claims of ineffective assistance of

counsel, due process violations, and no evidence are without merit. Therefore, we deny relief.

Applicant’s remaining claim alleging he was denied pre-sentence jail credit is dismissed

pursuant to Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010).
Filed: March 16, 2022

Do not publish
No. 12-7.

#### Baker *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
**Exhibit23.2**

 

**Consentof Independent Auditors**

The Shareholders and TrusteesInnSuites Hospitality Trust:

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statement (No. 333-46030) on Form S-8 of InnSuites HospitalityTrust and subsidiaries (the Company) of our report dated April 30, 2002, withrespect to the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity andcash flows for the year ended January 31, 2002, and the 2002 information in therelated financial statement schedule, which report appears in the January 31,2004, annual report on Form 10-K of the Company.

 
|             | /s/  KPMG LLP |   |
|------------------|--------------------|--------|
|             |               |
| Phoenix, Arizona |               |
| April 30, 2004   |               |

 

----
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00281

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: XAVIER GONZA LEZ

AND XG VENTURES, LLC ,

RELATORS §

§

§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM
Xavier Gonzalez and XG Ventures, LLC, Relat ors, petitioned for writs of mandamus and
prohibition pertaining to a n ex parte temporary restraining order signed by the respondent. 1 They
also filed a motion for emergency relief, which was overruled.
On October 16, 2014, this court notified Relators that it appears the ex parte temporary
restraining order ha s expired, rendering moot their complaints in this proceeding. Relators were
informed that this original proceeding would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before

October 27, 2014, the court was shown sufficient cause to proceed. The October 27 deadline has passed, and Relators have not responded to this court’s October 16 notice. Accordingly, Relators’ petition for writs of mandamus and prohibition is dismissed as moot. Opin ion delivered Octo ber 30, 2014. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( PUBLISH )

1 The respondent is the Honorable E.L. McClendon, sitting as a visiting judge in the 258th Judicial District Court of Trinity County. The real party in interest is Gustavo Lleras.

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 30 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00281

- CV

XAVIER GONZA LEZ AND XG VENTURES, LLC,

Relators V. HON. E.L. MCCLENDON , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus and
petition for writ of prohibition filed by XAVIER GONZALEZ AND XG VENTURES, LLC

, who are the relato rs in Cause No. 21721, pending on the docket of the 258th Judicial District
Court of Trinity County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on
September 30, 2014, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opin ion of this
Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and
ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby D ISMISSED

AS M OOT

. By per curiam opinion

.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J

.
ENDORSEMENT NO. 1

Attaching to and forming part of the QUOTA SHARE RETROCESSION AGREEMENT
between AMERICAN HALLMARK INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS, Dallas, Texas
(hereinafter called the "Company") and the Reinsurer specifically
identified below (hereinafter called the "Reinsurer").

IT IS AGREED, effective 12:01 a.m., Central Standard Time, July 1, 1997
that ARTICLE 25 - PARTICIPATION, the first paragraph will read as
follows and not as heretofore:

This Agreement obligates the Reinsurer for _______% of the interests and
liabilities set forth under this Agreement.

ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, by their authorized
representatives, have executed this Endorsement as of the following
dates:


PARTICIPATING REINSURERS

Dorinco Reinsurance Company           50%


AMERICAN HALLMARK INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS

By______________________________________
(signature)

________________________________________
(name)

________________________________________
(title)



QUOTA SHARE RETROCESSION AGREEMENT

          issued to

AMERICAN HALLMARK INSURANCE COMPANY OF TEXAS
No. 12-5492.

#### Silva *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### COM. v. WILSON, H.

3027 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/20/2017

CP-51-CR-0001224-2007

(Philadelphia)

Affirmed
# Y2013
Draft Appendix Q – Chesapeake Bay TMDL for Nutrients and Sediment

Q - 1 September 24 , 2010 Appendix Q. Detailed Annual Chesapeake Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs This appendix presents the detailed annual WLAs and LAs for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL for nutrients and sediment in two spreadsheets: Appendix Q - 1: Detailed Annual Chesapeake Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs for Proposed Amended WQS ( Q - 1_ProposedWQS_AnnualLoads_092310.xls ) Appendix Q - 2: Detailed Annual Chesapeake Bay TMDL WLAs and LAs for Full Back Stop Allocations ( Q - 2_FullBackStop_AnnualLoads_092310.xls ) Appendix Q - 1 includes detailed n itrogen, phosphorus, and sediment annual allocations to achieve the proposed amended WQS. Appendix Q - 2 includes detailed nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment annual allocations to achieve a full backstop TMDL, in case such controls are needed in the final T MDL (Section 8). Each of the spreadsheets list total nitrogen (TOTN), total phosphorus (TOTP) and total sediment (TSED) loads as both delivered to the Chesapeake Bay’s tidal waters and edge - of

- stream (discharge to local waterbodies) (Section 9) . Loading i nformation is reported at both detailed and summary spatial scales and both detailed and summary source categories

– working from general at the top of the worksheet to more detailed towards the bottom of the worksheet . Finer scale allocations are shown for each of the 92 segments and by sources for WLA s including agriculture (CAFOs), stormwater (MS4s), wastewater (CSO) and wastewater (significant and nonsignificant by NPDES permit); and for LAs including agriculture, forest, non - tidal atmospheric deposit ion, onsite treatment systems, and urban sources.
Exhibit 32.1







                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant  to  18 U.S.C.  1350 (as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002),  We,  the  undersigned,  hereby  certify that to the best of our
knowledge  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of The Reserve Petroleum Company for
the  fiscal 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
and  that  the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.





Date:  March  19,  2004                /s/  Mason  McLain
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Mason  McLain,  President
                                       (Chief  Executive  Officer)




Date:  March  19,  2004                /s/  James  L.  Tyler
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       James  L.  Tyler
                                       2nd Vice President, Secretary/Treasurer
                                         (Chief  Financial  Officer)
# table21
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 55 (Friday, March 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 13603]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7145]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. ER97-707-000 and ER97-705-000]


Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. and ProMark Energy, Inc.; 
Notice of Issuance of Order

March 17, 1997.
    Consolidated Edison of New York, Inc. (ConEd) and ProMark Energy, 
Inc. (ProMark) (collectively, Applicants), its affiliated power 
marketer, filed separate applications to sell power at market based 
rates. ProMark also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In 
particular, ProMark requested that the Commission granted blanket 
approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances and assumptions 
of liabilities by the ProMark. On March 14, 1997, the Commission issued 
an Order Conditionally Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based 
Rates, Establishing Hearing Procedures And Consolidating Proceedings 
(Order), in the above-docketed proceedings.
    The Commission's March 14, 1997 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering paragraphs (G), (H), and (J):
    (G) Within 30 days of the date of this order, any person desiring 
to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket approval of 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by ProMark should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (H) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (G) above, ProMark is hereby authorized, pursuant to 
section 204 of the FPA, to issue securities and assume obligations and 
liabilities as guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of 
any security of another person; provided that such issued or assumption 
is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of ProMark, 
compatible with the public interest, and reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    (J) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of 
ProMark's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities. * * *
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is April 14, 1997.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-7145 Filed 3-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Lofton Ryan BURRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-55517

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 13, 2018 *

Filed February 22, 2018

*577Lofton Ryan Burris, Pro Se

Bernard Kornberg, Attorney, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Attorney, Severson *&*Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Wells Fargo Bank, NA, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company

Mark D. Estle, Esquire, Senior Counsel, The Estle Law Firm, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee NBS Default Services, LLC

Kevin Broersma, Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Ticor Title Company of California

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Burris's request for oral argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

This matter has been stayed since February 23, 2017 pending resolution of *Ho v. ReconTrust Co., N.A.,*No. 10-56884, or further order of the court. Defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Wells Fargo Bank, NA’s motion to lift the stay (Docket Entry No. 30) is granted. We hereby lift the stay.

Lofton Ryan Burris appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Burris’s action because Burris failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. *See id.*at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by accepting defendants’ motion to dismiss over Burris’s objection that defendants had not complied with Central District of California Local Rule 7-3. *See Bias v. Moynihan,*508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review); *Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,*286 F.3d 1118, 1129 (9th Cir. 2002) (“The district court has considerable latitude in managing the parties’ motion practice and enforcing local rules that place parameters on briefing.”).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32(b)

                                Exhibit 32(b)
                               CERTIFICATION OF
                           CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. S 1350

  I, Scott  K.  Billings,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of  Hallmark  Financial
 Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that the accompanying  report
 on Form 10-QSB for the  fiscal quarter ended June  30, 2003, and filed  with
 the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the  date hereof (the  "Report"),
 fully complies  with the  requirements of  Section 13(a) of  the  Securities
 Exchange Act of  1934, as amended.  I further certify  that the  information
 contained in  the Report  fairly presents,  in  all material  respects,  the
 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



 Dated:  August 14, 2003        /s/ Scott K. Billings
                                ---------------------
                                Scott K. Billings, Chief Financial Officer