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

AUSTIN 

Honorable Henry M. wade 

County Attorney 

Eioakwall county 

Rookwall, Texas 

Dear sir: 

lar valuation, 

five (5) aents 

valuation. 

100.00) Dollar 

Civil statutes ot Texas, 

sahool dlstriot votes a 

ard of trustee& shall 

lly levy and eaune to be assesss 

upon the taxable property in 

e distrlat for the maintenaaae 

trse sohools of the said district 

m tax:\as the qualified toters o? 

auth&!lzed at the sleotlon held 

Zr that purpose1 or It no speaifie rats has 

been voted, said board shall levy such a rate 

eaah year within. that limit as it may deem judioious. where a maintenanoe tax has been voted, 

no eleatlon to revoke, modify or inareaae the 
Honorable Henry h. Wade, Page 2 

same shall be held until two years from the 

date of the election authorizing such maintenance tax. An election to revoke, modify ,or 

increase such maintenance tax,,when permissible, may be obtained and held substantially 

as herein provided for an election to authorize suah tax; provided, however, that no ohange 

or moditioation in such maintenance tax shall 

ever arfect any bond tax authorized by suoh 

district .” 

The right of’ the qualified voters of an independent school distriat to revoke, modify or inarease 

the sohool maintenanas tax.has been repeatedly recognized 

by our State courts. In Yorktown Independent Sohool District v. Asslerbach, etal, C.ommisalon of Appeals, 12 S. 

W. (2d) 130, the court said: 

*The method provided by law for authorizing taxes for maintenanoe of publia free sahools 

and the like is by a reference to the qualified 

property taxpay$ng voters of the distriot without whioh any attempt to levy such taxes would 

be futife:‘! 

.We, therefore, answer your question in the affirmative. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GERERAL OF TEXAS 

By (signed) Glenn R. Lewis 

Glenn R. Lewis 

Assistant 

Hk:RS 

APPROVED: ,NOV. 14, 1939 

By (Signed) Hirschie Johnson 

Hirschie Johnson 

(Signed) W. F. LEoore 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTOmY GENERAL 

APPROVED : OPINION COMMITTEE 

Sy B. w. B., Chairman
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


                   HEALTHCARE.COM CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS (LOSS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                             Years ended December 31,
                                                                                    -----------------------------------------
                                                                                       2000            1999           1998
                                                                                    ----------      ----------      ---------
                                                                                    (In thousands, except for per share data)
<S>                                                                                 <C>             <C>             <C>
Net earnings (loss) attributable to common shareholders                               $  2,808       $ (8,504)      $ 1,498
                                                                                      ========       ========       =======

Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                                    27,280         25,347        24,031
                                                                                      ========       ========       =======

Basic net earnings (loss) per common share                                            $   0.10       $  (0.34)      $  0.06
                                                                                      ========       ========       =======

Shares used in diluted net earnings (loss) per share calculation:
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                                 27,280         25,347        24,031
   Additional shares assumed outstanding from dilutive stock
     options used in diluted earnings (loss) per share
     calculation                                                                           839             --  *        836
                                                                                      --------       --------       -------
                                                                                        28,119         25,347        24,867
Diluted net earnings (loss) per common share
                                                                                      $   0.10       $  (0.34)      $  0.06
                                                                                      ========       ========       =======
</TABLE>

*        Since stock options are antidilutive to the loss per common share
         calculation, stock options are not considered in such loss per share
         calculation in 1999.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of AHL Services, Inc.
(the Company), hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: August 11, 2003



Name:

/s/ A. Clayton PerfallA. Clayton PerfallChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 907, has been
provided to AHL Services and will be retained by AHL Services and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Francisco TZUNUX, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-1471.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Nov. 10, 2011.

Randy Olen, on brief for petitioner.

Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Civil Division, and Briena L. Strippoli, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.

Before LIPEZ, SELYA and HOWARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for judicial review in which the petitioner, a Guatemalan national, challenges a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (the Board) denying his application for withholding of removal and mandating his removal to his homeland. The Board’s underlying decision is fact-based, and we review it under the familiar “substantial evidence” standard. *Mariko v. Holder,*632 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.2011). This standard is “highly deferential,” and we “must uphold the [Board’s] determination as long as that determination is ‘supported by reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record considered as a whole.’ ” *Lopez de Hincapie v. Gonzales,*494 F.3d 213, 218 (1st Cir.2007) (quoting *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992)). To allow us to set aside the Board’s decision, “the record must *compel*the contrary conclusion.” *Id.*(emphasis in original); *accord Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. at 481 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 812.

The record in this case does not compel a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Board but, rather, fully supports a finding that the petitioner failed to carry his burden of proving that, more likely *459than not, he would if repatriated be persecuted by gangs on account of his status as an indigenous Quiche Indian. Among other things, the petitioner was not harmed by the gangs at any time before he left Guatemala; none of the documentary evidence in the record mentions, much less shows, that Quiche Indians in Guatemala are targeted by gangs; the petitioner’s family members continue to live peacefully in Guatemala; and the gangs themselves recruit and include Quiche Indians as members. These facts, singly and in the ensemble, support the Board’s decision.

The petitioner’s brief does not directly address this formidable obstacle. Instead, it raises new arguments not fairly raised by the record and, in any event, not raised before the Board. These arguments are unexhausted and, therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Ahmed v. Holder,*611 F.3d 90, 97 (1st Cir.2010).

We need go no further. For the reasons elucidated above, the petition for judicial review must be denied.

*So Ordered.*
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jack Gregory, certify that:



(1)    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Premier Holding Corp.;





(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)) 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 ensure that 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 report is being prepared;





(c)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant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





(d)     Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal 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 to materially 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 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 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 Registrant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 Registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: May 11, 2010 | Jack Gregory
Chief Executive Officer and Director
|------------------ | -------------------------------------------------
# C_2019131EN.01005401.xml

| 8.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/54

---

Action brought on 9 February 2019 — Alcar Aktiebolag v EUIPO — Alcar Holding (alcar.se)

(Case T-77/19)

(2019/C 131/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alcar Aktiebolag (Bromma, Sweden) (represented by: M. Ateva, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alcar Holding GmbH (Wien, Austria)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative word mark alcar.se in colours white and blue — Application for registration No 15 508 583

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 November 2018 in Case R 378/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | stay the proceedings before the General Court until the revocation proceedings against the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH have been concluded, and the real scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH has been determined; |
| --- | --- |

—

stay the proceedings before the General Court until the revocation proceedings against the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH have been concluded, and the real scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH has been determined;

| — | annul the decision of the Board Appeal in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board Appeal in its entirety;

| — | uphold the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety;

| — | order Alcar Holding GmbH to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal, as well as the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Alcar Holding GmbH to pay the Applicant’s costs of the proceedings before the Opposition Division, the Board of Appeal, as well as the General Court.

Pleas in law

| — | The Board of Appeal erroneously extended the scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH; |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal erroneously extended the scope of protection of the trade mark of Alcar Holding GmbH;

| — | The Board of Appeal made an error in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Board of Appeal made an error in the assessment of the likelihood of confusion between the trade marks.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DIANA RUIZ ESPARZA,

Appellant,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT 

EL PASO,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00094-CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2013DCV4283)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee 

recover from Appellant all costs of appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall be 

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2023.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.).

Marion, C.J. (Ret.), sitting by assignment
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 12 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 12

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give 
 States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 
        by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2011

  Mr. Enzi (for himself, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Risch, and Mr. 
Cornyn) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 
             and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to give 
 States the right to repeal Federal laws and regulations when ratified 
        by the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be 
repealed by the several States, and such repeal shall be effective when 
the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States approve 
resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same 
provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Mims, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 856]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.), entered April 30, 2009, which denied, without a hearing, his motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of the same court dated June 2, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate his conviction. Apart from his own self-serving assertions, he failed to provide any nonhearsay evidence to contradict the record, which indicates that he received the effective assistance of counsel with respect to the People’s plea offers *(see*CPL 440.30 [4] [d]; *People v Fernandez,*5 NY3d 813 [2005]; *People v Lane,*83 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2011]; *People v Rogers,*8 AD3d 888, 890-891 [2004]). In addition, the record does not indicate that the defendant was not present at the proceeding at which the People’s plea offers were communicated to his trial counsel, and he failed to submit substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity that attaches to trial proceedings in support of his claim that his right to be present at the proceeding was violated *(see People v Andrew,*1 NY3d 546, 547 [2003]; *People v Velasquez,*1 NY3d 44, 48 [2003]; *People v Bogan,*78 AD3d 855, 856 [2010]; *People v Talbert,*303 AD2d 696 [2003]). Dickerson, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William T. Royle, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The psychiatric opinions offered by the People were not the fruits of defendant’s illegally obtained confession and were based on facts gained from an independent source. They were properly received in evidence as direct proof to overcome defendant’s claim of insanity, an issue on which the People bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Ricco, 56*NY2d 320, 327). Further, the jury’s implicit finding that the defendant was sane was not against the weight of the evidence. Other issues raised by defendant have been examined and found to be meritless. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ostrowski, J. — murder, second degree, and other offenses.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Denman, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.
EXHIBIT
99.2



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 on Form 10-Q of Entrust,
Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, David J. Wagner, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of 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/    David J. Wagner 
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 6, 2003 |  | David J. Wagner        
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer



A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Entrust, Inc. and will be

retained by
Entrust, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-60003

Summary Calendar

MANOHAR BISTA

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A95 212 449

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manohar Bista, a native and citizen of Nepal, petitions this courtto review

the order ofthe Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal ofthe

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying Bista’s asylum application as timebarred, and finding Bista ineligible for withholding of removal or relief under the

Convention Against Torture. Bista challenges only the determination that he

is ineligible for withholding of removal. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809F.2d

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 2, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60003

2

1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986). Bista maintains: the BIA’s and IJ’s rejection of his

claim–that, if he returned to Nepal, he had a well-founded fear of persecution

because of his political opinions–was not supported by substantial evidence; the

Maoists are known generally for “dealing harshly” with individuals who publish

critical articles; the Maoists have persecuted his family members because of

Bista’s political opinions; and the IJ focused incorrectly on Bista’s family’s lack

of problems to supportfinding Bista failed to show the requisite clear probability

of future persecution.

Because the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings, except to find that Bista had

published articles since the initiation of removal proceedings, we review the

decision of the IJ. See Ahmed v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2006).

Substantial evidence supports the conclusion that Bista failed to show a clear

probability of future persecution if he returned to Nepal. See Roy v. Ashcroft,

389 F.3d 132, 138 (5th Cir. 2004); Ozdemir v. INS, 46 F.3d 6, 7 (5th Cir. 1994).

Bista also seeks to have this court take judicial notice of the current

political situation in Nepal, as documented in a series of internet articles listed

by Bista. The means for seeking further fact-finding is through a motion to

reopen. See Ali v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 678, 680 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because Bista has failed to establish a clear probability of persecution

upon return to Nepal, the evidence does not compel the conclusion that Bista’s

fear of persecution is well-founded. See Roy, 389 F.3d at 138. Accordingly, the

conclusion ofthe BIA is substantially reasonable. See Carbajal-Gonzalez v. INS,

78 F.3d 194, 197 (5th Cir. 1996).

DENIED.