alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Hon. Earl Rudder, Chairman Opinion Number WW-2 

Veterans' Land Board 

Austin, Texas Re: Will it be necessary to 

amend the Veterans' Land 

Act in any way before 

the recently authorized 

$100,000,000.00 bond issue 

or any part thereof may be 

Dear Mr; Rudder: issued by the Board? 

Your recent letter questions whether the Veterans' Land Board 

may proceed to issue bonds under the provisions of Article 3, 

Section 49(B) of the Constitution of Texas, as adopted November 6, 1956, or whether it will be necessary to amend Article 

5421(m), V.C.S. 

It is, of course, elementary that bonds or other negotiable instruments of 'the State'mag not be issued without express statutory or constitutional authority. This constitutional provision 

supplies that authority when it says: 

"The Veterans' Land Board may issue not to 

exceed Two Hundred Million Dollars ($2OO,OOO,OCO) ,, 

in bonds or obligations of the State,-of,Texee,~~ k . 

Article 54,21(m), Section 3, had, pureuant to the former provision 

of the Constitution, authorized $100,000,000 in obligations. T,he 

Constitution expressly su~persedes-the,~statute when it says: 

"Such .bonds (refe.rence,,to $200,000~,000) shall 

be executed by said Board ,as, en. obligationof 

the State of Texas in, such,,form, denominations, 

and upon such tern\s as ar,e nou provided by law 

or as may hereafter be provided by law." 

Again, the Con.stitution states: 

"The additional bonds herein authorized may 

be sold in such installments as deemed necessary and advisable . . ." 
Ron. Earl Rudder, page 2 (WW-2) 

Article 5421(m), Section g(a), also provides that beginning 

December 1, 1959, moneys shall be set apart for the payment 

of interest and principal on the outstanding bonds. This 

provision is carried forward by Article 3, Section 49(B) of 

the Constitution of Texas. 

Article 3, Section 49(B) also provides a similar date for 

the additional bonds therein authorized, namely, December 1, 

1965. It is a new provision, making specific reference to 

the additional bonds,and is notin conflict with Article 

5421(m), V.C.S. 

You are respectfully advised that a reading of the constitutional provision, as a whole, and particularly the above quoted 

provisions, demonstrates the amendment is self-enacting and the 

additional bonds may be issued without additional le islation 

upon the terms and conditions specified InArticle 5 & 21(m), 

v.c .s., as modified by Article 3, Section,49(B) of the Constitution of Texas. 

'SUMMARY ' 

..' 

The provisions of Article 3, Section49(B) of 

the Constitution of Texas, are self-executing. 

The additional $100,000,000 of bonds may be 

issued without further legislation. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

EMM-s 

Elbert M. Morrow 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPI 

BY
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Wayne B. Fuquay, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Analytical Surveys, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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 quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) Disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 19, 2004 

 

/s/ Wayne B. Fuquay

Wayne B. Fuquay

Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2909 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2909

To require closing costs to be paid by the enterprises with respect to 
       certain refinanced mortgage loans, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2012

  Mr. Merkley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require closing costs to be paid by the enterprises with respect to 
       certain refinanced mortgage loans, 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 ``Rebuilding Equity Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. REBUILDING EQUITY PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--The Federal National Mortgage Association and the 
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (in this Act referred to as the 
``enterprises'') shall each establish a voluntary program for borrowers 
who qualify for the Home Affordable Refinance Program carried out by 
the enterprises, in which the enterprises shall pay for the closing 
costs associated with applying for and receiving the refinancing when 
the borrower agrees to refinance into a fully amortizing loan with a 
term of not longer than 20 years.
    (b) Inclusions.--Closing costs covered by this section shall 
include--
            (1) application fees;
            (2) credit check costs;
            (3) title search costs; and
            (4) attorneys' fees associated with closing the 
        transaction, other than attorneys' fees associated with 
        disputes arising out of the transaction or otherwise ancillary 
        to closing the transaction.
                                 <all>
```
AMENDMENT
      NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     

    This
      Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”)
      to the
      Employment Agreement dated as of March 24, 2004 (the “Employment
      Agreement”),
      between Capital Lease Funding, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”)
      and
      Robert C. Blanz (the “Executive”),
      is
      made and entered into this 13th day of February, 2007.

     

    RECITALS

     

    WHEREAS,
      the
      Company and the Executive desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided
      herein:

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      in
      consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good
      and
      valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby
      acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     

    1.  Section
      4(e) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by replacing
“$750 thousand” with “$1.0 million.”

     

    2.  Sections
      6(e)(i) and 6(e)(ii) of the Employment Agreement are hereby amended by replacing
      “two (2)” with “three (3).”

     

    3.  Except
      as
      expressly provided in this Amendment or as necessary to effectuate the terms
      of
      this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall not be otherwise amended but
      shall remain in full force and affect.

     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      parties have executed this Amendment on the date and year first above
      written.

     

    
      	 	 	 
	 	Capital
              Lease
              Funding, Inc.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ 
Michael
              E. Gagliardi
	 	 	
              
                

              

              Name: Michael E. Gagliardi

            
	 	 	Title: Chairman, Compensation Committee
	 	 	 
	 	 	
              /s/
                Robert C. Blanz

            
	 	
              

              Robert
                C. Blanz
Emilio NUNEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2874 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fabrics of man-made fibers consisting 

of one or two layers of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheeting layered 

between an outer knit fabric wholly of nylon and another outer woven 

fabric containing by weight 65 percent or more of micro fiber polyester. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on fabrics of man-made 

fibers consisting of one or two layers of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheeting layered between an outer 

knit fabric wholly of nylon and another outer woven 

fabric containing by weight 65 percent or more of micro 

fiber polyester. 

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


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2874 IS

1 SECTION 1. FABRICS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS CONSISTING 

2 OF ONE OR TWO LAYERS OF EXPANDED 

3 POLYTETRAFLUOROETHYLENE SHEETING 

4 LAYERED BETWEEN AN OUTER KNIT FABRIC 

5 WHOLLY OF NYLON AND ANOTHER OUTER 

6 WOVEN FABRIC CONTAINING BY WEIGHT 65 

7 PERCENT OR MORE OF MICRO FIBER POLY8 ESTER. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

10 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

11 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

12 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Fabrics of man-made fibers 

consisting of one or two layers of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene sheeting layered between an outer knit 

fabric wholly of nylon and another outer woven fabric containing by weight 65 percent 

or more of micro fiber polyester (provided for in subheading 5903.90.25) ............. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

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

14 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

15 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

16 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to Fifth Circuit 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 Fifth

Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

1 Pollard contends that the district court abused its

discretion by allowing the City to file a second motion for summary judgment, subsequently granted, within 45 days of trial. Local

Rule 56.1, however, provides that “[u]nless otherwise directed by

the presiding judge, no motion for summary judgment shall be filed

within 45 days of trial.” Thus, the district court acted well

within its discretion.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10863

Summary Calendar

AMOS POLLARD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS, doing business as Dallas Convention Center,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:96-CV-7-D

February 12, 1999

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, AND DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Amos Pollard, an electrician whom the City of Dallas

dismissed, appeals the entry of summary judgment against him. 1 The2

only claim Pollard seeks to resuscitate on this appeal alleges that

t he City violated his due process rights, cognizable under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. A municipality cannot be liable for § 1983

violations under a theory of respondeat superior or vicarious

liability. S ee, e.g.

, Collins v. Harker Heights

, 503 U.S. 115, 122

(1992). Pollard must thus establish that this deprivation occurred

pursuant to an official municipal policy or as a result of a

persistent, widespread practice. See Webster v. City of Houston

,

735 F.2d 838, 841 (5th Cir. 1984). He has offered no evidence to

s upport this contention, and summary judgment was thus proper on

t he § 1983 claim. Any remaining claims are waived by Pollard’s

failure to brief them.

AFFIRMED.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 20

- 00103

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF William D. STEWART , Jr.

From the Probate Court No. 2

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PC

- 0986

Honorable Veronica Vasquez , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE ALVAREZ , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are taxed against Appellant Wayne A. Stewart.

SIGNED May 19, 2021.

_____________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
**Exhibit 32.02**

 

**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 KMG America Corporation Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby 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 results of operations of KMG America Corporation.

 
| /s/ Scott H. DeLong III | Date: March 15, 2006 |
|-------------------------|----------------------|

Scott H. DeLong III

Senior Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit
      32**


CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
        THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 
 Each
        of
        the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
        adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Quarterly
        Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 fully complies with
        the
        requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
        1934,
        as amended, and the information contained in such report fairly presents,
        in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company.
 
 This
        9th
        day of August, 2005
 
 
 /s/
        David D. Stovall
 Chief
        Executive Officer
 
 
 /s/
        Annette Banks
 Chief
        Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.1 SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION  I, Edwin G. Marshall, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Medizone International, Inc. for the quarter ended September 30, 2006;  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;  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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer=s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer=s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer=s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer=s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer=s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer=s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer=s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer=s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: December 18, 2006  /s/Edwin G. Marshall Edwin G. Marshall, Principal Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2615 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2615

    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Benzyl carbazate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 7, 2012

   Mr. Coons introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Benzyl carbazate.

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

SECTION 1. BENZYL CARBAZATE.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.01.44 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to benzyl carbazate) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/
31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          10,576
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             888
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,513
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     35,373
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        263,935
<ALLOWANCE>                                      2,338
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 329,899
<DEPOSITS>                                     292,136
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,490
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,508
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,508
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,262
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 329,899
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  5,152
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  535
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    62
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,749
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,460
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,576
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,173
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       50
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   9
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,306
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    251
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         251
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.59
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,236
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,302
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       14
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                2,338
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,338
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
HAI HOANG, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Case No. 2D17-1916

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 22, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.