alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TOUiti)M.o\UTHORITY May20,2015

To the U.S. DepartmentofTransportation Regarding: DOS-2015-0082 On behalf of the San Diego Tourism Authority, I write to you in support ofthe Open Skies agreements as they assist the efforts to increase the number of international travelerstothe United States. We haveworked hard to appealto notonlythe domestic travelers, but also to those traveling from international destinations. This growth will continue to be possible ifinternational travelers find it easy and affordable to come to the U.S. We supportthe Open Skies agreements and urgeyou to preserve all existing Open Skies agreements and vigorously work to expand this successful policy. These agreements have helped to increase the numberofflights tothe United States, leadingto access to new and growing markets and lowerfares. The competition is good forthose traveling as well as the entire U.S. economy. Open Skies will continue to help our leisure travel and meetings and convention business grow. Too often, America loses out to other international destinations for global events. The Open Skies agreements will help us to grow the market for internationaltravel ofalltypes

. We compete aggressively with other destinations across the country and around the world. We believe that more competition in regards to the travel industry is good for consumers and good for the growth of our industry. That same spirit applies to competition in international aviation as well. I thank you for your consideration and hope you too will help to keep the Open Skies agreements in place to help keep our international visitation strong throughout the UnitedStates. Best regards,



# ~

Joe Terzi President& CEO

750 8 Street Suite 1500 SanDiego/CA 92101 TEL 619.232.3101 SANOIEGO. RG FAX 619.696.9371
Charles Drew SMITH v. STATE

CR-15-0640

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                           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 Action Products
International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September
30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Robert L. Burrows, as Chief Financial 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 Section 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 results of operations of the
Company.


                                        /s/ Robert L. Burrows
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Robert L. Burrows
                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                        November 14, 2002



                                 Page 17 of 17
CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, Appellant, v. Ralph PHILLIPS, Appellee.

No. 4D17-913

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 1, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 27, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00074

- CV

Stacey SCOTT

, Appellant

v.

Larry Furrow and Keller /s

Larry FURROW and Keller Williams Legacy Group,

Appellee s

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 1125

- CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Ap pellant ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief

is this date GRANTED. Time is extended to June 29, 2015.



### PER CURIAM

ATTES TED TO:

____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Tracia Lee

Tracia Y. Lee, P.L.L.C.

P.O. Box 171022

Austin, TX 78717

Stacey Jo Scott

634 Ashmore Avenue

New Braunfels, TX 78130 Vaughan E. Waters

Thornton, Biechlin, Segrato, R eynolds & Guerra, L.C.

100 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 500

San Antonio, TX 78216
Robert Lee DAVIS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D15-3277

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 14, 2018

Ashley N. Minton of Minton Law, P.A., Fort Pierce, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

**ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT**

Per Curiam.

Pursuant to the mandate from the Florida Supreme Court in *Davis v. State* , 2018 WL 480516 (Fla. Jan. 19, 2018), quashing this court's opinion and remanding for resentencing in accordance with *Johnson v. State* , 215 So.3d 1237 (Fla. 2017), this case is remanded for resentencing.

Warner, May and Forst, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                        BIOMATRIX, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                   EXHIBIT 11

                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                       Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended
                                                       September 30, 1997   September 30, 1997
                                                           -----------         -----------
<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>        
Income applicable to common shares                         $ 9,788,338         $13,589,089

Weighted-average number of common shares and common
     share equivalents outstanding during the period:
         Common Stock                                       10,949,389          10,820,664
         Stock options - primary                               512,017             392,022
                                                           -----------         -----------
         Shares outstanding - primary                       11,461,406          11,212,686
         Stock options - fully diluted                          54,938             174,933
                                                           -----------         -----------
         Shares outstanding - fully diluted                 11,516,344          11,387,619

         Primary earnings per common share                 $      0.85         $      1.21
         Fully diluted earnings per common share           $      0.85         $      1.19
</TABLE>


                                       14
Joshua BEDAL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D16-1741

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
### Regional Administmtor Fleming,Attamnts Map 

### of EBCl Tribal 

### lands

Cc: Regan 4 IndM COOdhd~r 

## - Cindy Nolan, Actfng Region 4 

### Project Ofm

# - Gracy Danois EPA OAQPS

# - Laura Mckdvey EBCl ~nvfronktent & 

### Natural Resources Manager 

# -Jamie long EBCl W atural 

### Resources & Construction Oirect~r 

# - Forrest Parker

# EBCI 

# Tran~Boundary Emission Sources



# I hgend 

## 3 2005 

### N8Emision Sources
STATE of Louisiana v. Noel CLARK

NO. 2018-KK-0141

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 9, 2018

Denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0648 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. WILLIAM JEROME CARNES,

Defendant and Appellant.

**GRANT** Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the Appellant is given an extension of time until March 25, 2022, to prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court February 17 2022

02/17/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0648
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter Citation Limited Pursuant to 1st Cir. Loc. R. 32.3 

# United Stat es Court of Appeals

For the First C ircuit

No. 04-2489 PAUL A. GARGANO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. RONALD ZIMMER, CELITA ZIMMER, and ZIMMER & ASSOCIATES, Defendants-Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge ]

Before Boudin, Chief Judge , Howard, Circuit Judge , and Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge .
Scott McConchie with whom Griesinger Tighe & Maffei, LLP was on brief for Defendants-Appellees. Paul A. Gar gano with whom Gargano & Associates and Timothy Scannell were on brief for Appellant.

March 31, 2005-2- PerCuriam . This case arose from dealings that a Cayman Islands con struction firm had with a client, Paul Gargano, a Massachusetts lawyer who is also a resident of the Cayman Islands bygrant of status, owns property there, and sought to build a home there. The firm, Zimmer & Associates, is run by Celita and Ronald Zimmer, both Caymanians by citizenship or grant of status. After the business relationship broke down over payment issues, Gargano filedsuit in federal district court in Mass achusetts, asserting various contract, fraud, and unfair practices claims.

The magistrate judge recommended grantin g a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), assessing in detail the multi-facete d " minimum contacts" and "gest alt" f actors and finding that both sets of considerations worked against the plaintiff. See Burger King Corp.
v. Rudzewicz , 471 U.S. 462, 471-78 (1985); Ticketmaster-New York, Inc. v. Alioto, 26 F.3d 201, 206-12 (1st Cir. 1994). The district judge adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommen d ation, dismissing the case.

If the plaintiff met the necessary showing of "minimum contacts," and it is not at all clear that he di d, he wo uld have done so at best by a small margin -- one that the "gestalt" factors weighi ng against jurisdiction in this case easily overcome. Accordin gl y, on this second ground, we readily affirm, substantially for the reasons given by the magistrate judge.

It is so ordered.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 07

- 00135

- CR

TRENT ARCHIE , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court No. 22768

ORDER

We are in receipt of your “Request for Free Transcript” and “Request for Free

Appellate Record.” We have no jurisdiction to consider a motion for a free transcript.

This Court has very limited post final judg ment jurisdiction, and whether or not to

provide you with a free copy of the record is not one of those issues.

Please note that the rule you cite, Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.2, applies

to your direct appeal, not a post final judgment habeas corp us proceeding. Further, theArchie v. State Page 2

other provision you cite, 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), applies to federal court proceedings. We are

a State Court; as such, it does not apply to this Court.

We have enclosed a copy of an opinion from another inmate request that was

fil ed as a mandamus proceeding which addresses some of these issues in greater detail.

We hope that it is helpful to your understanding of why we do not have the authority to

grant you the relief you request. Your requests for a free transcript and appellat e record

are dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Requests dismissed Order issued and filed October 24, 2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos COTA-LUGO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1283.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 25, 2004.

Robert M. Russel, Office of the United States, Attorney, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Glen R. Anstine, Denver, CO, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KELLY, HENRY, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT**

TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Carlos Cota-Lugo (Cota-Lugo) appeals his sentence for violating the terms of his supervised release from prison. We affirm.

*Background*

Cota-Lugo was convicted of illegally reentering the United States after deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1), sentenced to a prison term of one year and a day, and given a three-year supervised release term with a specific condition that he not illegally reenter the United States. In 2002 he was arrested in Denver, convicted of possession of heroin with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and sentenced to a 34-month prison term. He was also convicted of violating the terms of his supervised release, and sentenced to an 11-month prison term to run consecutively to the 34-month term.

*Analysis*

We review a sentence upon revocation of supervised release to determine whether it is reasoned and reasonable. *United States v. Lee,*957 F.2d 770, 774 (10th Cir.1992). The United States Sentencing Commission, *Guidelines Manual, §*7B1.4(a)(l) (Nov.2002) (USSG) recommends a sentence of 5-11 months for violation of a *895term of supervised release. The district court followed this recommendation, even though the court had the discretion to impose a higher sentence based on the underlying crime. *United States v. Hurst,*78 F.3d 482 (10th Cir.1996). Therefore its sentence was both reasoned and reasonable.

In addition, USSG § 7B1.3(f) recommends that a term of imprisonment for a supervised release violation run “consecutively to any sentence of imprisonment that the defendant is serving.” The district court followed this recommendation; therefore, the consecutive term was reasoned and reasonable.

We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the district court. Glen R. Anstine’s motion to withdraw as counsel for appellant is granted.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medical Action Industries Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Paul D. Meringolo, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and President of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and
belief of the signatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul D. Meringolo                                       
|Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and President
|                                                            
|Date: February 4, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ADA AND CHARLES BENNICOFF,

Petitioners

v.

LEHIGH COUNTY AGRIC. SOC.,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 53 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2019 the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and 

Petition Seeking Leave to File a Short Reply Brief to Respondent’s Answer in Opposition 

to Petition for Allowance of Appeal are DENIED.
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 Amendment No. 3 to the
Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ChineseInvestors.com. Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2016,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned officers of the Company do hereby,
certify, pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



(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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: February 21, 2017





| | /s/ Wei Wang           
| | -----------------------
| | Wei Wang               
| | Chief Executive Officer
| |                        
| |                        
| | /s/ Guoqi Deng         
| | Guoqi Deng             
| | Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,862,458
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          92,858
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            13,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 53,079,801
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      15,153,713
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        68,218,067
<LOANS>                                     97,208,805
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,449,253
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             198,436,029
<DEPOSITS>                                 166,730,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         16,189,097
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,239,775
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,276,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             198,436,029
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,375,011
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,210,042
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,385
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,586,438
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             892,595
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,008,358
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,578,080
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  140,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,746,721
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,398,778
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     858,523
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   858,523
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.26
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,303,938
<LOANS-PAST>                                    39,254
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,300,239
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   13,164
<RECOVERIES>                                    22,178
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,449,253
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,449,253
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        366,163
        

</TABLE>
1

Schaffner, Karen S.

From: Bogany, Carolyn [Carolyn.Bogany@tpcgrp.com]

Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 12:12 PM

To: Schaffner, Karen S.

Cc: Textor, Marise L.; Shedd.Steve@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Follow-up - TK-101

Karen, this is in reference to the February 1st e-mail. Based on TPC’s facility drawings ,TK-101 is a highpressure condensate tank. Therefore, it is not subject to a MACT. 

Carolyn Coates Bogany 

Senior Environmental Engineer - HNO 

Carolyn.Bogany@tpcgrp.com 

TPC Group | www.tpcgrp.com 

Office: 713.475.7474 | Cell: 832.331.0572 | Fax: 713-475-7463 

8600 Park Place Blvd | Houston, Texas 77017
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 Annual
Report of Zenosense, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Lazar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: March 16, 2022 | By: | /s/ David Lazar                 
|--------------------- | --- | --------------------------------
|                      |     | David Lazar                     
|                      |     | Chief Executive Officer         
|                      |     | (Principal Executive Officer and
|                      |     | Principal Financial Officer)
Ernest ARCHIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-3810

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30245

Conference Calendar

__________________

LIONELL J. DAVIS,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RICHARD L. STALDER, Warden; C. MARTIN LENSING, Warden;

R. NORTH; L. THOMPSON; J. ST. ROMAIN; R. WEBRE;

UNKNOWN MARCHAND; UNKNOWN JOHNSON,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CV-1819A-2

- - - - - - - - - -

June 25, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Lionell J. Davis (#118554) appeals the district court’s sua

sponte order granting summary judgment for the defendants. Davis

contends that his pleadings raise a valid excessive-force claim. 

For reasons expressed by the district court, we hold that this

appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Hudson v.

McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1992). Because it is frivolous, the
No. 96-30245

-2-

appeal is DISMISSED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th

Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Davis is warned that any future

frivolous filing will invite the imposition of sanctions. To

avoid sanctions, Davis should review any pending appeals to

ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. 

 APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.