alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

July 30, 2015

No. 04

- 14

- 00824

- CV & 04

- 15

- 00006

- CV

Robert TYSON , Carl and Kathy Taylor, Linda and Ron Tetrick, Jim and Nancy Wescott, and Paul and Ruthe Wilson, Appe llant s

v.

Demar BOREN , Lorena Yates and Robert N. F reeman II, Appellee s

From the 198 th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. CV

- 13

- 0100356 & CV

- 13

- 0200356 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



## ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal an d has determined that oral argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issu es presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the
cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on Wednesday, September 2, 2015, to the following panel: Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Karen Angelini, and Justice Jason Pulliam. All parties will be notified of the Court’s decision in this appeal in accordance with
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 48.

Either party may file a motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that oral argument will n ot significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 39.8. Such a motion should be filed within ten (10) days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on July 30, 2015.

______________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion

, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this July 30, 2015.

______________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,


CHAPTER
63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE)





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Intermec, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the period ended June 28, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Patrick J. Byrne,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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.





/s/  Patrick J.
      ByrnePatrick J.
      ByrneChief
      Executive OfficerJuly
      30, 2009
USCIRF Opening Remarks, Religious Freedom in Southeast Asia 1

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom Hearing

Religious Freedom in Southeast Asia: Techno-Authoritarianism and 

Transnational Influences

Opening Remarks as prepared for delivery

Frederick A. Davie, USCIRF Vice Chair

Thank you, Chair Cooper, and thank you also to our witnesses for joining us today. 

As our chair mentioned, religious freedom conditions throughout Southeast Asia 

continue to stagnate or decline. As USCIRF reporting highlights, blasphemy 

charges remain widespread in Indonesia and Malaysia. Restrictive legal codes, 

such as Brunei’s Shari’a Penal Code and the recently passed Indonesian Criminal 

Code, further criminalize blasphemy and restrict religious freedom. They do so, in 

part, through the laws and practices that permit digital surveillance. The 

bureaucratic regulation of religion by many nations in ASEAN has brought matters 

of faith into the domain of official government policy. Governments are 
USCIRF Opening Remarks, Religious Freedom in Southeast Asia 2

increasingly using technology to interfere in individual’s lives to enforce laws that 

regulate religious practice. In some places, such as Malaysia, it is no longer an 

individual’s choice to determine their faith identity or to convert to a religion or 

belief, to dress according to their conscience, to marry across religious lines, and 

so on. These are administrative issues requiring approval from a government 

agency. To defend these practices from international scrutiny, ASEAN members 

increasingly manipulate international human rights language in the name of 

preserving their cultural identity. 

As is well documented, the most egregious atrocities in the region have been 

committed by the Burmese military against the predominantly Muslim Rohingya. 

Burmese authorities’ use of technology to target Rohingya led, in part, to the 

explosion of violence and genocide in 2017. These actions sent millions of 

refugees throughout the wider region, threatening the economic and social stability 

of host countries who had nothing to do with the atrocities perpetrated in Burma. 

Religious freedom violations in one country, if left unchanged, can threaten the 

stability and development of neighboring countries.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I will now pass the floor over 

to Commissioner Stephen Schneck for his remarks.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Allergy Research Group, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dr. Stephen A. Levine, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.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 results of operations of
the Company.

Dated:  November 14, 2007



                            By:  /s/  Stephen A. Levine
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                            Dr. Stephen A. Levine
                            Chief Executive Officer and 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 Allergy Research Group, Inc. and
will be retained by Allergy Research Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001043946
<NAME> VERTICALNET, INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          76,500
<SECURITIES>                                   105,128
<RECEIVABLES>                                  101,231
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,779
<INVENTORY>                                     13,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               315,208
<PP&E>                                          37,219
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,056,935
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          149,089
<BONDS>                                         21,705
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     90,946
<COMMON>                                           851
<OTHER-SE>                                     793,155
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,056,935
<SALES>                                         43,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,009
<CGS>                                          223,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               181,223
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,089
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (43,605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (43,605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (43,605)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.57)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6949

DARRELL W. COOK, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; ROBERT G. O’HARA,

Judge,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (CA-04-146)

Submitted: October 7, 2004 Decided: October 14, 2004

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darrell W. Cook, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Darrell W. Cook, Jr., a Virginia prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order dismissing his petition filed

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) without prejudice for failure to

comply with a previous court order. An appeal may not be taken

from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We also deny his pending motion for appointment of

counsel. 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         367,427
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,918,311
<ALLOWANCES>                                   295,763
<INVENTORY>                                 14,570,270
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            32,397,501
<PP&E>                                      13,113,850
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,125,759
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              83,643,539
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       25,210,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        87,498
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,417,557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                83,643,539
<SALES>                                     32,042,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,042,097
<CGS>                                       16,437,132
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,292,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            14,101,496
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               191,158
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             307,833
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,312,311
<INCOME-TAX>                                   563,383
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            748,928
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                240,226
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   508,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.06
        

</TABLE>
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6125 

For the relief of Nery Antonio Velasquez-Roblero. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Nery Antonio Velasquez-Roblero. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR NERY AN4 TONIO VELASQUEZ-ROBLERO. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Nery Antonio Velasquez-Roblero shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6125 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Nery Antonio 

2 Velasquez-Roblero enters the United States before the fil3 ing deadline specified in subsection (c), he shall be consid4 ered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 

5 otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status 

6 under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Nery Antonio Velasquez-Roblero, the Secretary 

16 of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, 

17 during the current or next following fiscal year, the total 

18 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na19 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

20 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if appli21 cable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 

22 available to natives of the country of the alien’s birth 

23 under section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6125 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Nery Antonio Velasquez2 Roblero shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be ac3 corded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigra4 tion and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Last revised (Transmittal 14-013) March 18, 2019 

Guide to Judiciary Policy 

Vol. 14: Procurement 

Ch. 3: Purchasing Methods 

Appx. 3B: Determination of Best Procurement Approach 

Title of Effort: ________ [Title of the statement of work or requirement] 

Contract Vehicle: _______________ [Contract number and the name of the servicing 

agency that administers the contract] 

Requesting Agency: _______________ [Name of the requirements office]

Requirements POC: __________ [Name, position title, email, and telephone number]

Description of Effort: ___________ [Brief description of the type of supplies/services 

to be acquired]

Total Estimated Cost: _______________ [Estimated dollar amount and type of funds] 

Using _________________ [Agency name]’s contract for the acquisition of 

_____________ [title of acquisition] represents the best procurement approach for, and 

is in the judiciary’s best interest based on the following: 

1. The suitability of the contract vehicle. [Explain how either the tasks to be 

accomplished or the supplies to be provided are within the scope of the contract to 

be used. Indicate whether or not the requiring activities schedule, performance, and 

delivery requirements will be met.] 

2. The value of using the contract vehicle. [Explain why the use of the contract vehicle 

is cost effective, taking into account administrative cost savings from using an 

already existing contract; lower prices and/or discounts; greater number of vendors; 

and reasonableness of the acquisition vehicle access fee.]
Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 14, Appx. 3B Page 2 

3. The expertise of the requesting agency to place orders and administer them against 

the selected contract vehicle. [Document the expertise of the contracting 

office/officer placing orders against the contract and administering them throughout 

the acquisition lifecycle.] 

4. Terms, conditions, and/or requirements unique to judiciary will be incorporated into 

the order to comply with agency policy and procedures. 

Determination of Best Procurement Approach Direct Acquisition 

Based upon the foregoing findings, I determine that the use of the contract of ________ 

[Agency name] for the acquisition of _____________________________ [requirement] 

represents the best procurement approach for the judiciary and is in its best interest. 

I reviewed the determination of Best Procurement Approach and find it adequate for 

approval. 

Signature: ________________________________ Date: ____________________ 

Typed name: __________________________________________________________ 

Contracting Specialist/Officer______________________________________________ 

I reviewed the determination of Best Procurement Approach and find it legally sufficient. 

Signature _______________________________ Date: _____________________ 

Typed name: __________________________ Branch Chief: ____________________
exhibit432.htm






  





  











  








EXHIBIT 4.3.2












CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY







I, JOHN M. LOWBER, the duly elected and acting Secretary of General Communication, Inc., an Alaska corporation ("Company"), do hereby certify and declare that the resolution of the Company's Board of Directors contained in the minutes of its meeting attached hereto as Exhibit 4.3.2A is a true and correct copy, duly adopted by the Company's Board of Directors at its meeting held on December 5, 2009.







Executed this 2nd day of April 2010 at Anchorage, Alaska.







GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.












By:     John M. Lowber                     


John M. Lowber, Secretary

















[S E A L]











  





  











  








EXHIBIT 4.3.2A


EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF ACTION BY


THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF


GENERAL COMMUNICATION, INC.


DECEMBER 5, 2009












GCI 401 (k) Resolutions







WHEREAS, General Communication, Inc. (the “Corporation”) has maintained the General Communication, Inc. Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “QESPP”) for the benefit of its employees;







WHEREAS, United Utilities, Inc., a subsidiary of the Corporation, has maintained the United Utilities, Inc. 401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan (the “UUI Plan”) for the benefit of its employees;







WHEREAS, the Corporation desires to merge the UUI Plan into the QESPP, and to restate the QESPP onto a prototype plan document offered through the new administrator for the QESPP;







NOW THEREFORE, the Corporation takes the following actions:







RESOLVED, that the Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan of General Communication, Inc. shall be restated in its entirety by the adoption of the prototype plan Adoption Agreement and Basic Plan document to be provided by Prudential, effective January 1, 2010, and the officers of the Corporation hereby are authorized to execute such plan documents, which shall include the following changes that will be effective January 1, 2010:  the addition of Roth 401(k) contributions and the elimination of voluntary after-tax contributions;







FURTHER RESOLVED, that the name of the Qualified Employee Stock Purchase Plan of General Communication, Inc. shall be changed to the “GCI 401(k) Plan” effective January 1, 2010;







FURTHER RESOLVED, that the United Utilities, Inc. 401(k) & Profit Sharing Plan shall be merged with and into the GCI 401(k) Plan, effective January 4, 2010;







FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following employers hereby are approved as participating employers in the GCI 401(k) Plan, effective January 1, 2010:







GCI Communication Corp.


United Utilities, Inc.







FURTHER RESOLVED, that Prudential Financial hereby is appointed as the directed trustee of the GCI 401(k) Plan, effective January 1, 2010;







FURTHER RESOLVED, that the following persons hereby are appointed to serve as the discretionary Trustees of the GCI 401(k) Plan, effective January 1, 2010, and hereby are delegated all fiduciary authority over the plan:







Ronald A. Duncan


G. Wilson Hughes


John M. Lowber
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 97-2132

KEITH D. SNYDER, APPELLANT,

V.

HERSHEL W. GOBER,

ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.

Before FARLEY, HOLDAWAY, and IVERS, Judges.

O R D E R

Oral arguments in the above case were scheduled to be held on Tuesday, September 19,

2000 at 2:00 pm. It is ORDERED that the argument is canceled.

DATED: Sep 7, 2000 PER CURIAM.
EXHIBIT 32.2

          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 of Advanced Engine Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Alexandria Phillips, Treasurer of the Company, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Date: May 14, 2004                          /s/ ALEXANDRIA PHILLIPS
                                                Alexandria Phillips, Treasurer