alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

!lonom,bls J. Ii. Jones 

County AUditor 

Aiohita Palls, Tsxaa 

Dear Sir: 

February 20, 1939 

A 

Opinion I::,. O-30 

Ho 1 Xn:n 

41 

moo tax If aupport * 

oounty ho al. 

Imticlo 4478 I?. 3. 1925 

and collect taxes for the 

established nnd 

lows 1 

Article\$ Xov%>ntuLes, provides in part as folsuhit to such votora at a speciul or regular election 

t1:e ?ropoaitlon cf ionuin; bonds in such orw.roi;ate 

mount ac uay be desisnnted in said petition for the 

ostnblichinC or onlariing of suoh hoopit:tl. Lhoncver 

shy such proposition shall receive a i;iaJority of the 

votes of tho qualified property tax payera voting at 

euoh el.eotlon, mid oowim?ionere court shall ilstabllsh 

and lialntain such hospital and nhalL1 have the following 

povcera r

I' 

-. 
. 

. ” _ 

.’ 

. 

,. i 

‘. 

i ,‘ 

, 

, 

Hon. J. .R. Jones, February 20, 1939, ?a.-e 2 

“3. To cn\lae to be aemssed, levied rind oolleoted, 

such tflxos upon the real and porso:ir;l property o~;nod 

in the ccunty ne it ahnll dem neccssnry to provide the 

func!s for t!le ::.aintennnce theroof, and for 011 ot:ror 

necon?ary argcnditures tliorcfor.” 

In hydler ,v. Dorder, 115 S. Y . (2d) 702, error re&ed, 

the nbove ctntute w-ii? hold to ba constitutional Ln nclthorizln; 

-t::a ostablish::ient of a countp hos?itnl. .‘,B a naccsonr;r co;lponent 

part or the rifiht and poser to ostablieh the hospItn1, the ri,:ht 

; :m also ;:iven to tim corr~~lasionern’ oourt to levy taxes for the 

cmintenance thereof. ‘hs vnlidlty of such provlslon rmld Cm?ubtlesa 

follow; t:le validity of the statute authorizing the conotluotion 

of the hoo:litnl. 

hrtiale 8, seation 9, Cmstitution of ‘Lexris, provic~es 

that “no ooun.ty, city or tom shall levy &or0 than %Sg for city 

or county purpOsOs.n And Article 2352, Revised Civil ;tatutes, 

f~llowa the swe \tith the grovision!,bat “said cwrt (oo:~:~isaionars) 

sknll hive the power to levy and collect a tax for county gur?oses 

not to exceed 25# on the $100.00 valuation. 

Tha lavy of a tax for county purposes t::~lild inolude the 

li3vy of a tax to itillillt.niIl the3 .hoopltal. In that view, therefore, 

your question is given an affimiative nnnrier. 

TIml;ovor, your attention 3s called to t~?e 1l:tit of 256 on 

the zlOO.00 valuation for oounty purposes, :lnd 1~6 vo.a16 ;;mtiln 

t,>nt no tax can be levied for the rnaintennnce, of the hosplt&l. Afoh 

v~ould !lave the effect of 6wallln:: the levy for genernl ptirpo~:‘es 

to exceed the 25$ limit. 

Your8 rory truly 

Olenn H. Lewis 

Aesistant
Exhibit 10.32





Exhibit 10.32




ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.

CHANGE IN COMPENSATION STRUCTURE FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS,

EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2009




With the recent reassignment of responsibility for some members of the Board of Directors (the
“Board”) of Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (the “Registrant”) and the critical need to more closely
monitor executive succession plans and best practices in director compensation, the Executive
Committee of the Board will take on additional responsibilities going forward. In light of the
additional responsibilities, the Board adopted a new compensation structure for the Executive
Committee. At the Board meeting held on August 13, 2009, the Board approved the following
compensation structure for the Executive Committee, effective August 1, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Committee	 	Role	 	Annual Retainer
	Executive

	 	Chair
	 	$	25,000	 
	Executive

	 	Member
	 	$	12,500
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 4/24/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

LARRY A. BRYAN, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 95-3235

v. (D.C. No. 95-CV-3223)

E. JAY GREENO and JOHN COWLES,

Court-Appointed Defense Counsels, 

(D. Kan.)

Defendants - Appellees.

 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before PORFILIO, McKAY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered

submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Larry A. Bryan, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that his court-appointed attorneys provided ineffective
2

assistance of counsel in his state court conviction. He also alleges that his attorneys

conspired against him with the state. The district court dismissed the action as legally

frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because of Mr. Bryan’s conclusory allegations

and because Mr. Bryan had not first invalidated his state court conviction as required by

Heck v. Humphrey, 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994). The court then denied Mr. Bryan leave to

proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. We have reviewed the record and have determined

that Mr. Bryan fails to make a sufficient argument on the law or on the facts to warrant

granting him leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Thus, Mr. Bryan’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis is denied. The appeal is DISMISSED.

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
##### 



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
  (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.
 February 29, 2008
    
    /s/ DAVID W. WILLIAMSDavid W. WilliamsChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Presidentof Noble Corporation
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

 

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of Regal Entertainment Group, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), each hereby certifies that, to his/her knowledge on the date hereof:

 

(a) the Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of the Company for the fiscal year ended January 1, 2015, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(b) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ AMY   E. MILES   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Amy   E. Miles            |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer* |
|   | March 25,   2015     |
|   |                      |
|   | /s/ DAVID   H. OWNBY |
|   | David   H. Ownby          |
|   | *Chief Financial Officer* |
|   | March 25,   2015     |

 

----
#### Pushpinder WALIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Patrick R. DONAHOE, Postmaster General United States Postal Service,* Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-36004.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 15, 2011.**

Filed July 6, 2011.

*530Pushpinder Walia, Everett, WA, pro se.

Helen J. Brunner, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Marion Jamieson Mittet, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 Patrick R. Donahoe has been substituted for his predecessor, John Potter, as Postmaster General under Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

**

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Pushpinder Walia appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her request for appointment of counsel and her motion to submit exhibits in her Title VII employment action against the United States Postal Service. To the extent that we have jurisdiction, it is under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Ivey v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Alaska,*673 F.2d 266, 269 (9th Cir.1982). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walia’s request for appointment of counsel because Walia failed to show that she lacked the financial resources to hire counsel. *See id.*(a plaintiffs financial resources are a relevant factor in the district court’s determination whether to appoint counsel in a Title VII action).

Walia’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of Walia’s “Motion to Submit Exhibits Referred to in Her Employment Discrimination Complaint” because it is not an appealable decision. *See Way v. Cnty. of Ventura,*348 F.3d 808, 810 (9th Cir.2003) (court of appeals generally has jurisdiction only to hear appeals from final decisions of the district court).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” and to the
use of our reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company
and (b) March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, in Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to
the Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-149434) pertaining to
Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 5.

    


                                                      /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
#### ROB ROY DOUGLAS, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. WILLIAM M. McCARTNEY, *ET AL.,*DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

*Mr. Frank G. Masini*and *Mr. Leslie S. Kohn*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Hein, Smith & Mooney, Mr. Charles 0. Shenier*and *Mr. Bruce H. Losche*for the respondents.

March 28, 1960.

Denied.
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-2174

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Don C. Brown, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 7, 2008 Filed: May 8, 2008

___________ Before BYE, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Don C. Brown pleaded guilty to thr ee counts of distributing a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). At sentencing, the district court 1 imposed a 46-month prison sentence to run consecutively to an undischarged prison sentence imposed in another case for violating supervised release. Brown’s c ounsel has moved to w ithdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in making the sentence consecutiv e to the supervised-release revocation-2- sentence. In a supplemental brief, Brow n adds that his sent ence is greater than necessary to satisfy the statutory sentencing goals.
We conclude that the sentence, at the bottom of the advisory Guidelines range, is not unreasonable. See United States v. Harris , 493 F.3d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 2007) (sentence within advisory Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable), cert. denied , 128 S. Ct. 1263 (2008); United States v. Winston , 456 F.3d 861, 867 (8th Cir. 2006) (reviewing district court’s decision to impose consecutive sentence for reasonableness); United States v. Haack , 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir. 2005) (this court reviews sentence to determine whether district court abused discretion by imposing unreasonable sentence; describing factors used to review sentence for reasonableness); see also U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c) & comment. (n.3(C)) (addressing sentencing when defendant commits instant offense while on supervised release for another offense).
Finally, after reviewing the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm.

______________________________
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, being the Chairman of Kinetek, Inc., an Illinois corporation (the “Registrant”), hereby certifies that the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Annual Report”) of the Registrant for the year ended December 31, 2004, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78m (a)) and that the information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

Date: November 2, 2005

 

/s/ Thomas H. Quinn                

Thomas H. Quinn

Chairman
#### PEOPLE v. KEITEL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

April 12, 1912.)

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York against Adolph Keitel. No opinion. Motion to dismiss appeal granted. Order filed.
ex10a.htm


    


    


    Exhibit
10(a)

    


    


    


    Consent of Ernst
& Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    


    


    We consent to the
reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 34 to the Registration
Statement (Form N-4 No.
333-18419) pertaining
to Lincoln National Variable Annuity Account H, which is incorporated by reference
into Post-Effective Amendment No. 37. We also consent to the use of our
reports dated (a) March 18, 2009, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b)
March 13, 2009, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln
National Variable Annuity Account H, in Post-Effective Amendment
No. 33, which is incorporated by reference into Post-Effective Amendment
No. 37.

    


                                                     /s/ Ernst & Young
LLP

     

    Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

    December 2,
2009
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Hydrogen Power, Inc. (“HPI” or the
“Company”), formerly known as Equitex, Inc., on Form 10-Q for the period ended
      March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the “Report”). I, David J. Cade, Principal Executive Officer and
      Principal Accounting Officer, certify, 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 the Company, as of, and
      for
      the periods presented in the Report.








/s/
                David J. CadeDavid
                J. CadePrincipal
                Executive Officer andPrincipal
                Accounting OfficerJune
                15, 2007








A
      SIGNED
      ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED
      TO
      HPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY HPI, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
      AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON
      REQUEST.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1315

PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VERISIGN, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

. and

RSA SECURITY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

NETEGRITY, INC. and COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

David P. Swenson , Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Cir esi L.L.P, of Minneapolis, Minnesota, argued for plaintiff-appell ant. With him on the brief were Ronald J. Schutz

, Aziz Burgy , and Christopher J. Kuhlman

.

John M. DiMatteo , Willkie Farr & Gallagher, LLP, of New York, New York, argued for all defendants-appellees. With him on the brief for defendant-appellee Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. were Steven H. Reisberg and Leslie M. Spencer . On the brief for defendant-appellee Verisign, Inc. were Frank C. Cimino, Jr. and Daniel E. Yonan

, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld , LLP, of Washington, DC, and Jason A. Snyderman

and John D. Simmons , of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On the brief for defendantappellee RSA Security, Inc. were Mark D Selwyn , Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale andDorr LLP, of Palo Alto, California, and William F. Lee

, David B. Bassett

, Donald R. Steinberg , and Gregory P. Teran , of Boston, Massachusetts. On the brief for defendants-appellees, Netegrity, Inc., et al, were David M. Schlitz , Baker Botts LLP, of Washington, DC, and Samir A. Bhavsar and Jeffrey D. Baxter , of Dallas, Texas.

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2007-1315

PRISM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

VERISIGN, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

RSA SECURITY, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

and

NETEGRITY, INC. and COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees,

and

JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.



# Judgment

ON APPEAL from the UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In CASE NO(S). 05-CV-214.

This CAUSE having been hear d and considered, it isORDERED and ADJUDGED:

Per Curiam: (MAYER, BRYSON and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges ):

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

DATED: _ February 6, 2008

____ / s / Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly, Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33325-33326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13354]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human 
Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Initial Review Group Developmental Biology Study 
Section.
    Date: June 25, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, 2121D, Bethesda, 
MD 20817, (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Cathy J. Wedeen, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2121D, Bethesda, MD 20892-7510, (301) 435-
6878, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e28183968a9bcc95878687878ca28c8b8acc858d94"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="137072677b6a3d64767776767d537d7a7b3d747c65">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.


[[Page 33326]]


(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 14, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-13354 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR2, as follows:

     1. I am a duly appointed and qualified First Vice President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 29, 2005.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                         -------------------------------------
                         Thomas G. Lehmann
                         First Vice President