alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 137 Filed 11/28/01 Page 1 of 4 PageID 210
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 137 Filed 11/28/01 Page 2 of 4 PageID 211
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 137 Filed 11/28/01 Page 3 of 4 PageID 212
Case 3:00-cv-01254-L Document 137 Filed 11/28/01 Page 4 of 4 PageID 213
Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 1 of 6 PageID 22
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 2 of 6 PageID 23
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 3 of 6 PageID 24
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 4 of 6 PageID 25
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 5 of 6 PageID 26
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01438-N Document 9 Filed 03/01/05 Page 6 of 6 PageID 27
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WC 4 th AND RIO GRAND

, LP

,

Appellant

,

v.

LA ZO NA RIO, LLC

,

Appellee

. **§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§**

**§** No. 08

- 22

- 00 073

- C V

Appeal from the

345 th District Court

of Travis County, Texas

(TC# D

- 1

- GN

- 20

- 007177 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until November 22 , 2022

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Brent C. Perry

, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before November 22, 2022

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 15 th day of November , 2022.

PER CURIAM

B efore Ro driguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

With reference to the Quarterly Report of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Fyfe, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for
the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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 result of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ DAVID FYFE         
|DAVID FYFE             
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 14, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

O.C. HAWLEY, JR., )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 5:04-CV-296-C

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, O.C. Hawley, Jr., pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), is appealing a decision of the

Commissioner denying his application for supplemental security income benefits. The United States

Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation on June 10, 2005, and Plaintiff has filed

his objections to such Report and Recommendation. The Court has made a de novo review of the

records and finds that Plaintiff’s objections should be OVERRULED and that the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation should be ADOPTED as the findings of this Court. It is,

therefore,

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Objections are overruled, that the findings and conclusions of

the Magistrate Judge are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court, and that

the above-styled and numbered cause is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk will furnish a copy

hereof to any party appearing pro se and to each attorney of record by first class mail.

Dated this 8th day of August, 2005.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:04-cv-00296-C Document 15 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 57
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, J.Chris Steinhauser, certify that:

 

1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Qof GeoPetro Resources Company;

 

2.           Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.           Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.           The registrant’s other certifying officerand I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (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, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5.           The registrant’s other certifying officerand I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committeeof registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

(a)         All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting whichare 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 involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

 
| Date: May 13, 2008 | /s/ J. Chris  Steinhauser                      |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                    | J. Chris Steinhauser,  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
S.T. v. SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160679

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 25, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
| 1. | I      have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Golden State Petroleum      Transport 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; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 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; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 4. | The      registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal      control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules      13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and  have: |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 5. | The      registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our      most recent evaluation 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      function): |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
STATE of Louisiana v. Carlos LAMPLEY

NO. 2018-KO-1965

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

*613Denied.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 14, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40220

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO GARCIA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

No. 7:00-CR-224-6

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

Before SMITH, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Garcia appeals following his guilty-plea conviction of

possession with the intent to distribute over 900 kilograms of

marihuana. Garcia argues that the district court erred in failing

to reduce his sentence based on his being a minor or minimal participant in the offense and that the court relied on “improper”

facts to sentence him to 84 months of imprisonment. Under the 2001

version of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, a defendant could have received a re-
No. 03-40220

-2-

duction in his offense level if it was determined that he was a

minimal or a minor participant in the criminal activity. A “minimal participant” is one who is “plainly among the least culpable of

those involved in the conduct of a group” and who demonstrates a

lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure of

the enterprise. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.4). A “minor participant” is one who is “less culpable than most other participants,

but one whose role could not be described as minimal.” U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2, comment. (n.5). To merit an adjustment under § 3B1.2, the

defendant must have been “substantially less culpable” than the

average participant. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)). But, an adjustment is “not appropriate simply because a defendant does less than

other participants; in order to qualify as a minor participant, a

defendant must have been peripheral to the advancement of the

illicit activity.” United States v. Miranda, 248 F.3d 434, 446-47

(5th Cir. 2001). We review the district court’s determination that

Garcia did not play a minor or minimal role in the offense for

clear error. See United States v. Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 240 (5th

Cir. 1995). 

Garcia’s role in the offense was that of broker. He had a

role in loading the marihuana, and he provided his personal vehicle

in furtherance of that role. He admitted that his role included

putting a middleman in touch with a commercial driver. The district court did not clearly err by denying Garcia the mitigatingrole adjustment. See Miranda, 248 F.3d at 446-47; Brown, 54 F.3d
No. 03-40220

-3-

at 240. There is no factual support in the record for Garcia’s

assertion that the court used extraneous factors in determining his

sentence. 

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

                    MAXCOM TELECOMMUNICACIONES, S.A. DE C.V.
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                         IN ACCORDANCE WITH MEXICAN GAAP

                (Amounts expressed in Thousands of Mexican Pesos
                 with Purchasing Power as of December 31, 2005)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                2005        2004         2003         2002         2001
                                             ---------   ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
<S>                                          <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Income (Loss) Before Income Tax                (44,633)   (104,334)    (385,082)    (819,336)    (779,316)

Determination of the Ratio
Fixed charges:
Interest expense (1)                           101,587      42,234       32,976      241,714      510,559
Interest capitalized during period                 377         288           86          903        6,740
Rental expense                                  14,558      14,331       14,130       19,991       16,138
Amortization of Debt issuance costs             34,993      32,594       32,411       32,787       35,348
                                             ---------   ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

   Total fixed charges:                        151,515      89,447       79,603      295,395      568,785
                                             ---------   ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

Earnings:
Income (loss) from continuing operations       (44,633)   (104,334)    (385,082)    (819,336)    (779,316)
Fixed charges                                  151,515      89,447       79,603      295,395      568,785
Amortization of capitalized interests              816         782          768          734          220
Less:  interest capitalized during period         (377)       (288)         (86)        (903)      (6,740)


   Total earnings:                             107,321     (14,394)    (304,797)    (524,110)    (217,051)
                                             ---------   ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                 .71        (.16)       (3.83)       (1.77)        (.38)

INSUFFICIENCY                                   44,194     103,840      384,400      819,505      785,836
                                             =========   =========    =========    =========    =========
</TABLE>

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

(1)  Bank's commissions are included in the interest income in selected
     financial data
Case 2:03-cv-00264-J Document 8 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 28
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated September 16, 2002, (except for note 13, as to
which the date is October 2, 2002), accompanying the consolidated financial
statements and schedules included in the Annual Report of Precision Auto Care,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the years ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. We hereby consent
to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements
of Precision Auto Care, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-47165, effective March
2, 1998; File No. 333-47169, effective March 2, 1998; File No. 333-47171,
effective March 2, 1998; File No. 333-49097, effective April 1, 1998; File No.
333-85877, effective August 25, 1999; File No. 333-85879, effective August 25,
1999 and File No. 333-39226, effective June 14, 2000).




Vienna, Virginia
October 8, 2002
STATE of Louisiana v. David PETERS

No. 2018-KP-0333

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Applicant does not identify an illegal term in his sentence, and therefore, his filing is properly construed as an application for post-conviction relief. *See* *State v. Parker* , 98-0256 (La. 5/8/98), 711 So.2d 694. As such, it is subject to the time limitation set forth in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Applicant's application was not timely filed in the district court, and he fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state *72court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see* 28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Corey CRAIG v. STATE

CR-16-0209

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

July 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.
Steven Frederick FISHEL, Appellant, v. PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS and Publix Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D18-3427

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

Date of Accident: May 22, 2017.

Affirmed.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 178 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities to suppress 

wildfires, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK (for himself, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. BIGGS of 

Arizona, Mr. STAUBER, and Mr. ISSA) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the 

Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out activities 

to suppress wildfires, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUPPRESSION OF WILDFIRES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—With respect to covered National 

5 Forest System lands, the Secretary of Agriculture, acting 

6 through the Chief of the Forest Service— 

7 (1) shall— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 178 IH

1 (A) use all available resources to carry out 

2 wildfire suppression with the purpose of extin3 guishing wildfires detected on such lands not 

4 later than 24 hours after such a wildfire is de5 tected; and 

6 (B) immediately suppress any prescribed 

7 fire that exceeds prescription; 

8 (2) shall not inhibit the suppression efforts of 

9 State or local firefighting agencies that are author10 ized to respond to wildfire on such lands; 

11 (3) may only use fire as a resource manage12 ment tool if the fire is a prescribed fire that com13 plies with applicable law and regulations; 

14 (4) may only initiate a backfire or burnout dur15 ing a wildfire— 

16 (A) by order of the responsible incident 

17 commander; or 

18 (B) in instances that are necessary to pro19 tect the health and safety of firefighting per20 sonnel; and 

21 (5) shall use all available resources to control 

22 any such initiated backfire or burnout until extin23 guished. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 178 IH

1 (b) COVERED NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS

2 DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘covered National 

3 Forest System lands’’ means any area— 

4 (1) located within National Forest System 

5 lands; and 

6 (2) that— 

7 (A) the U.S. Drought Monitor has rated as 

8 having a D2 (severe drought) intensity, D3 (ex9 treme drought) intensity, or D4 (exceptional 

10 drought) intensity; 

11 (B) the National Interagency Fire Center 

12 declares has a National Wildland Fire Pre13 paredness level of 5; or 

14 (C) the Forest Service has identified as 

15 being located in a fireshed ranked in the top 10 

16 percent of wildfire exposure (as determined 

17 using the most recently published models of 

18 fireshed risk exposure published by the Forest 

19 Service). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
IA 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 30 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection 

Agency relating to ‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of 

Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 24, 2025 

Mr. DUNN of Florida (for himself, Mr. OGLES, Mr. RULLI, and Mr. 

MESSMER) submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Environmental Protection Agency relating to 

‘‘Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the 

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the En4 vironmental Protection Agency relating to ‘‘Phasedown of 

5 Hydrofluorocarbons: Management of Certain 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HJ 30 IH 

1 Hydrofluorocarbons and Substitutes Under the American 

2 Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 2020’’ (89 Fed. 

3 Reg. 82682 (October 11, 2024)), and such rule shall have 

4 no force or effect. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB