alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### WILLIAMS v. CONGER.

EEEOE TO THE CIRCUIT COUET OF THE UNITED STATES FOE THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 105 of October Term, 1887. —

Decided October 22, 1888.

A renewal of an application for a rehearing after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and for reasons which have been passed upon by the court, is not in order, and does not commend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.

This was a petition to correct a clerical mistake in the opinion of this court, delivered April 2, 1888, *Williams*v. Conger, 125 U. S. 397, citing in support of the power to make the amendment *Bank of Kentucky*v. *Wistar,*3 Pet. 431. To this petition was appended a petition for a rehearing which had been presented and overruled at October Term, 1887,. accompanied by a “ demand upon the court ” to give it a hearing.

*391
      *Mr. Eugene Williams*for both petitions.

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

Leave to file a motion for rehearing in this case is asked for on the ground of clerical error in the opinion. A motion for rehearing was made at the last term upon precisely the same brief now sought to be filed, and notwithstanding the alleged misconception in the opinion of the point made by the plaintiff in error, the court was satisfied with the conclusion it had reached, • and that no modification of the judgment was required, and no rehearing was necessary or called for. The motion was therefore denied. The persistent renewal of the application at this time, after the close of the term at which judgment was rendered, and especially upon the same reasons once overruled, is not in order, and does not recommend itself to the favorable consideration of the court.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7624

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WADE BROOKS BEST, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-62-FO, CA-01-98-4-FO)

Submitted: January 31, 2002 Decided: February 8, 2002

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wade Brooks Best, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. J. Frank Bradsher, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Wade Brooks Best, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Best, Nos. CR-95-62-FO; CA-01-

98-4-FO (E.D.N.C. July 10, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2589 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation 

AN ACT 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the 

Federal Communications Commission to publish on its 

Internet website the text of any item that is adopted 

by vote of the Commission not later than 24 hours 

after receipt of dissenting statements from all Commissioners wishing to submit such a statement with respect 

to such item. 

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


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2589 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF ITEMS ADOPTED BY 

2 VOTE OF THE COMMISSION. 

3 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 4 of the Communications 

4 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 154) is amended by adding at 

5 the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(p) In the case of any item that is adopted by vote 

7 of the Commission, the Commission shall publish on the 

8 Internet website of the Commission the text of such item 

9 not later than 24 hours after the Secretary of the Commis10 sion has received dissenting statements from all Commis11 sioners wishing to submit such a statement with respect 

12 to such item.’’. 

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

14 this section shall apply with respect to an item that is 

15 adopted after the date that is 30 days after the date of 

16 the enactment of this Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK9F6TC42PROD with BILLS
Listen

# Rochelle Garza

## Commission Chair

Political Affiliation: DemocratTerm Ends: Dec 2028

Rochelle Garza is an attorney from the Rio Grande Valley currently serving as President of the Texas Civil Rights Project, one of the most influential legal organizations dedicated to empowering Texas communities and creating policy changes in the state. 

In 2022, Rochelle Garza became the democratic nominee for Texas Attorney General on a platform focused on voting rights, reproductive rights and government accountability. She was the first Latina to be nominated in Texas history to run for Attorney General by any major party. Although she did not win, she earned the highest percentage of votes than any other statewide democratic nominee in Texas.  

She is the daughter of two public school teachers. Rochelle’s mother was raised by a WWII veteran and a hard-working mother who became the manager of a municipal credit union after raising her three children.  Rochelle’s father was raised on a farm by an immigrant mother and a father whose family had worked the land for multiple generations. Her father became a teacher, a lawyer and then served South Texas as an elected District Judge for 21 years. Together, they taught Rochelle to have faith, work hard, and that every person is deserving of dignity and respect.

At a young age, Rochelle learned firsthand how broken our healthcare system is. Her oldest brother, Robby, suffered a brain injury during childbirth and grew up with disabilities. Rochelle watched her parents work tirelessly to ensure Robby had the care he needed. Her mother left teaching to care for Robby. Access to affordable health care was absolutely critical. But time after time, Robby was denied coverage for his most basic needs, even a wheelchair lift to get him to school. Like so many families, Rochelle knows what it’s like to make sacrifices for the health of her family. 

So she became a lawyer for the people –– fighting for the civil rights of children, immigrants and families. Rochelle has expertise in immigration, family, criminal and constitutional law. She has fought for reproductive rights for immigrant teens in detention, including the *Garza v. Hargan* case in which Rochelle was the guardian for Jane Doe, a pregnant 17-year-old denied the right to choose.  Her work on that case resulted in the “Garza Notice,” a federal requirement that ensures teens in immigration detention control their reproductive health care choices, which is still in effect till this day. 

Rochelle graduated from the University of Houston Law Center and from Brown University with honors. She lives with her husband, Adam, their toddler, and their dog, Ramses, in Brownsville, Texas. 

-  Our Mission 
-  Commissioners 
-  Offices and Staff 
-  Careers 
-  Acquisition Opportunities 
-  Rankin Memorial Library 
-  FAQs
| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2010 (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.                                                                                  |

|   |            |                  |                                                 |   |
|--------|-----------------|-----------------------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | By:   | /s/ James M. Sullivan |                                                 |
|   |            | Name:       | James M. Sullivan                                    |   |
|   |            | Title:      | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |

----
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board
of Directors of United Energy Corp.

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement filed
on Form S-8 (file number 333-128669) of United Energy Corp. of our report dated
June 9, 2006 related to the consolidated financial statements of United Energy
Corp. included in this Annual Report for the year ended March 31, 2006.

| |                                 
| | --------------------------------
| | /s/ IMOWITZ,
  KOENIG & CO., LLP
| |                                 

New York, New
York
  June 29, 2006

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,072
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,140
<PP&E>                                           4,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (768)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,541,165
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,237,210
<BONDS>                                      1,700,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    203,825
<COMMON>                                    21,446,393
<OTHER-SE>                                (27,046,263)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,541,165
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,022,600)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,023,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (10,849,771)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,873,171)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)


</TABLE>
#### Ulrich et ux., Appellants, *v.*Nimetz et ux.

July 9, 1925:

Argued March 2,1925.

Appeal No. 21, February T., 1925, by plaintiffs from judgment of C. P. Luzerne County, January T., 1923, No. 239, in the case of Edward A. Ulrich and Kate Ulrich v. Frank Nimetz and Mary Nimetz.

Before Pouter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and G-awthrop, JJ.

Beversed.

Opinion by

Porter, J.,

This is an appeal from an order of the court below making absolute a rule to open a judgment entered by confession, under a warrant in a bond which accompanied a mortgage. We find no material difference in the allegations of the petition to open the judgment in this case, and the evidence produced in support thereof, and the allegations and evidence with which we have dealt in an opinion this day filed in the case of Eagler v. Cherewfka, No. 14, February Term, 1925. The order of the court must be reversed for the reasons stated in the opinion referred to. The defendants failed to produce any evidence which would entitle them to have the question of their liability submitted to a jury.

*122The order of the court below making absolute the rule to show cause why the judgment should not be opened is reversed, and said rule is discharged and the judgment reinstated.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
SHOCKWAVE MEDICAL, INC., Appellant

v.

CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee

ANDREW HIRSHFELD, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE,
Intervenor

______________________

2020

- 2314

______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2019

- 00408.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

D AVID C. M C P HIE
, Irell & Manella LLP, Newport Beach, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by Case: 20-2314 Document: 57 Page: 1 Filed: 01/18/2022S TEP HEN P AYNE ; M ICHAEL R ICHARD F LEMING , Los Angeles, CA, W ILLIAM A LCIATI
, G REG G ARDELLA , Gardella Grace PA, Washington, DC.

M ARK C HRISTOPHER N ELSON
, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee. Also represented by
J UANITA D E L OACH ; J EFFREY S TONE , Minneapolis, MN.

B ENJAMIN T. H ICKMAN , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, for interveno r. Also represented by M ARY L. K ELLY
, T HOMAS W. K RAUSE
, F ARHEENA Y ASMEEN R ASHEED

.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (P ROST
, C HEN
, and H UGHES
, Ci rcuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

January 18, 2022 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 20-2314 Document: 57 Page: 2 Filed: 01/18/2022
2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.20 
 2009 Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers 
 On
June 3, 2008, retroactive to May 1, 2008, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Environmental Power Corporation (the “Company”) approved the following base salaries for each of the Company’s “named
executive officers”, as defined in Item 402 of Regulation S-K. These base salaries remained the same for 2009. 
  

				
	 Name and Title
	  	Base Salary
	 Richard E. Kessel
     President and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	318,800
		
	 Michael E. Thomas
     Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	  	$	227,700
		
	 Dennis Haines
     Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	$	221,000
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000090 14-APR-2015 08:06 AM
Exhibit 32.1

                     WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned officer of WorldNet, Inc. of Nevada certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

..      the annual report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
       December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section
       13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

..      the information contained in the Form 10-KSB fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       the Company.



Date:   March 24, 2006
                                   /s/ Donald R. Mayer
                                   ___________________________________
                                   Donald R. Mayer
                                   Principal Executive Officer
                                   Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of China BAK Battery,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Yongbin
Han,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350,  adopted as 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 result of  operations of the
Company.




March 29, 2005



                                                          /s/ Yongbin Han
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Yongbin Han
                                                         Chief Financial 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 906, has been provided to China BAK Battery,  Inc.
and will be retained by China BAK Battery,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
exv10w7xay






Exhibit 10.7(a)


June 24,
2009




Altis Partners (Jersey) Limited

2 Hill Street

St Helier

Jersey

Channel Islands JE2 4UA




Attention: Mr. Richard F. Plane




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Re:
	 	Management Agreement Renewals






Dear Mr. Plane:



We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the commodity pools to which
reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management
Agreements through June 30, 2010 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain
unchanged.





	 	•	 	CTA Capital LLC
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Global Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Emerging CTA Portfolio L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Altis Partners Master Fund L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	CMF Institutional Futures Portfolio L.P.
	 
	 	•	 	Citigroup Global Futures Fund Ltd.




Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it
to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-793-1986. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-559-5046.




Very truly yours,




CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURES LLC




	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
 

Jennifer Magro
	 	 
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer & Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 





ALTIS PARTNERS (JERSEY) LIMITED





	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Richard Plane
 

	 	 
	Print Name:

	 	Richard Plane	 	 
	 
	 	Executive Director	 	 





JM/sr
EXHIBIT 10.1
EXTENSION OF PROMISSORY NOTE

$15,130.00

Santa Ana, California
February 4, 2001

     THE UNDERSIGNED promises to pay to the order of Mezzanine Capital Ltd. at
1516 Brookhollow Drive, Suite D, Santa Ana, CA 92705, or at such other place
as the holder hereof may designate in writing, the sum of fifteen thousand one
hundred thirty dollars ($15,130.00), with interest thereon at the rate of 10%
per annum from the date of the original promissory note, February 4, 2000.
Principal and interest shall be due and payable one year from the date
hereof.  This note shall replace the promissory note for these funds
originally due on February 4, 2001.

     Prepayment of this note may be made at any time without penalty.

     In the event of commencement of suit to enforce payment of this note, the
undersigned agrees to pay such additional sum as attorney's fees as the court
may adjudge reasonable.

     Cygni Investments, Inc.

     By: /s/ Carl Suter
            Carl Suter, President
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Nicholas R. Schacht, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Learning Tree International, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 29, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of the operations of Learning Tree International, Inc.



|                         |  |  |  |     |  |                         |  |                                            
|------------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|                         |  |  | 
|Date: September 24, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ NICHOLAS R. SCHACHT
|                         |  |  |  |     |  | Name: Title:            |  | Nicholas R. Schacht Chief Executive
Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

April 27, 2010 

p0419 

Order 

 

April 27, 2010 

140362 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140362 

 COA: 286096 

Washtenaw CC: 07-001499-FC 

RONNELL PHILLIP JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 24, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.