alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed April 16, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00239-CV

____________

IN RE KIMBERLY ANN JACSON, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

387th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 20-DCV-270713

ORDER

On March 27, 2020, this court issued an order staying the portion of the 

associate judge’s oral temporary orders for relator to “vacate the home by 6 p.m. on 
2

March 28th of 2020.” The district court has set a de novo hearing on the associate 

judge’s temporary orders for May 11, 2020.

1

After the de novo hearing has occurred and the district judge has ruled on the 

issues presented by relator, the parties shall provide to this court a written status 

report of the events occurring in the trial court. The status report shall be filed no 

later than 24 hours after the district judge has ruled.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Spain.

1 We note that the mandamus record does not contain any memorialization of the oral 

temporary orders signed by the associate judge.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Maritime Commission

Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR 515).

Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.

#### Non-Vessel-Operating Common Carrier Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Provex Lines Inc., 6581 NW. 82nd Avenue, Miami, FL 33166, Officer: Jose Arteaga, President, (Qualifying Individual)

#### Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants

Legend Express Co., 960 E. 12th Street, Los Angeles, CA 90021, Officers: Gila Morad, President, Julito A. Pascua, Vice President of Sales, (Qualifying Individual).

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Bryant L. VanBrakle,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-11020 Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6730-01-P
Exhibit 23.2



|KSI SHAH & ASSOCIATESChartered Accountants                                                                                              |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  | 
|Tel.: 04-332-5657, Fax: 04-332 5667 – Suite
1003, Khalid Al Attar Tower, Sh. Zayed Road, P.O. Box: 71241, Dubai – U.A.E.
sna@sna-me.com
|                                                                                                                                        |  |  | 
|                                                                                                                                        |  |  | 

|Ref: Cert./080804 | 25 August 2008 | 
|----------------- | -------------- | 
|                  |                | 

Lazare Kaplan International Inc.New York, New York

Dear Sir,

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements (Form S-8, No. 333-40225, No. 333-92077
and No. 333-52303)
of Lazare Kaplan International of our report dated August 11, 2008, relating
to the Gulfdiam DMCC financial statements, an equity investee, which is incorporated
by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

|Cordially,            |  |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  | 
|CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS |  | 
|Dubai                 |  | 



---
#### SHEPARD et al., Respondents, v. SQUIRE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

March 27, 1894.)

Action by Floyd C. Shepard and others against Watson G. Squire and another.

Argued before DWIGHT, P. X, and LEWIS, HAIGHT, and BRADLEY, JJ.

No opinion. Order denying motion to change place of trial appealed from reversed, with disbursements to the appellants. •
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05730-BSJ Document 5 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit








FIRST ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT






THIS FIRST ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of March l, 1996, by and between MELVYN J. POWERS and MARY P. POWERS, individuals d/b/a M&M REALTY, with an office address at 7 Finance Drive, Danbury, Connecticut   06810 (together, the “Lessor”) and LORAD, A DIVISION OF TREX-MEDICAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with an office address at 36 Apple Ridge Road, Danbury, Connecticut 06810 (the “Lessee”).


BACKGROUND:


As of December 26, 1995, Lessor and Lessee entered into a lease (the "Lease") of certain premises at Apple Ridge Road, Danbury, Connecticut 06810, as therein more particularly described, and upon the terms and conditions therein contained. Lessor and Lessee have agreed to amend the Lease in manner hereinafter set out.





NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of One ($1.00) Dollar each to the other in hand paid, receipt whereof being hereby acknowledged, Lessor and Lessee agree as follows:


		
	1.
	In Section 1.1 (vi) of the Lease, the word “November” shall be deemed deleted and replaced with the word "December”.




		
	2.
	In Section 1.1 (xxxi) of the Lease, the words “November 1, 1996” shall be deemed deleted and replaced with the words "December 1, 1996".




		
	3.
	In the fourth line of Section 2.2 of the Lease, the words “March 1, 1996” shall be deemed deleted and replaced with the words “April 1, 1996”.




		
	4.
	Except as hereby expressly modified, the Lease shall remain in full force and effect upon the terms and conditions therein contained.




		
	5.
	This Agreement is made under and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Connecticut.


 





 


























IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed and delivered this
Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


Signed, sealed and delivered
in the presence of:




/s/ Margaret Caruso        /s/ Melvyn J. Powers


/s/ Claire A. Milano




/s/ Margaret Caruso        /s/ Mary P. Powers


/s/ Claire A. Milano






LORAD, A DIVISION OF
TREX MEDICAL CORPORATION












/s/ Theresa P. Baker        By: /s/ Raymond A. Calvo
       Its: V.P., Controller
/s/ Maria Lena Tibbits            Duly Authorized
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00254-CV

CHARLOTTE SKAGGS TAYLOR,

Appellant

V.

WILLIAM CLARK TAYLOR, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 442nd District 

Court

of Denton County (18-6356-442)

October 11, 2018

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### MACALLEN CO. v. CHARLES WIRT & CO. et al.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

May 15, 1912.)

No. 373.

Patents (§ 328*)—Inebingement—Insulating Joints.

The Gennert patent No. 514,822, for improvements in insulating Joints and couplings for sections generally, *helé*not infringed.

In Equity. Suit by the Macallen Company against Charles Wirt & Co. and others. On final hearing.

Decree for defendants.

William A. Macleod, of Boston, Mass. (George P. Dike, of Boston, Máss., of counsel), for complainant.

Dyer, Dyer & Taylor, of New York City, and C. Bradford Eraley, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Richard N. Dyer and John Robert Taylor, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.

*

For other cases see same topic & § numbek in Dec. *&*Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

*626J. B. McPHERSON, Circuit Judge.

The 'plaintiff is suing upon claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 of what seems to be a mere paper patent. It is No. 514,822, for “improvements in insulating joints and couplings for sections generally,” and was granted February 13, 1894, to Emil F. Gennert upon an application filed August 10, 1893. It is unnecessary to quote the claims, for I cannot find the time to give my views in detail upon the several controverted questions raised by the record. The patent expired shortly after the suit was brought, so that no injunction could now issue; and—since it is conceded that neither form of notice required by section 4900, R. S.,† was given—the plaintiff could at the best obtain no more than an accounting for the few months between the filing of the bill and the date of expiry. But even this cannot be decreed, for after a full consideration of the evidence and the briefs, I find as a fact that defendants do not infringe.

For this reason the bill may be dismissed, with costs.,

†

 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 333S.
**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**





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony Principe, the chief
      financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge:





(i)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
      2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





By:
            /s/
                ANTHONY PRINCIPEAnthony
                Principe*Chief
                Financial Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*





July
      3,
      2008
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11173]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-1078, MM Docket No. 01-30, RM-10042]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Bozeman, MT

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of KCTZ Communications, Inc., 
licensee of station KBZK(TV), substitutes DTV channel 13 for DTV 
channel 16 at Bozeman, Montana. See 66 FR 9062, February 6, 2001. DTV 
channel 13 can be allotted to Bozeman in compliance with the principle 
community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference 
coordinates (45-40-24 N. and 110-52-02 W.) with a power of 160, HAAT of 
305 meters and with a DTV service population of 79 thousand. Since the 
community of Bozeman is located within 400 kilometers of the U.S.-
Canadian border, concurrence by the Canadian government has been 
obtained for this allotment.
    With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective June 15, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-30, adopted April 27, 2001, and 
released May 1, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Montana, is amended by removing DTV channel 16 and adding DTV 
channel 13 at Bozeman.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-11173 Filed 4-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Exhibit 31.1



SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION



I, Douglas A. Catalano, Chief Executive Officer of enherent Corp., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of enherent 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 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;



b) 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



c) 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 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 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.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DOUGLAS A. CATALANO                                      
|Douglas A. Catalano Chief Executive Officer
November 15, 2004
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44732

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

MARIA GUADALUPE MACIEL ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 550

Filed: August 18, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller , District Judge.

Judgment of convi ction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for aggravated driving while under the influence of alcohol

, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster

, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A

. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Maria Guadalupe Maciel pleaded guilty to felony aggravated driving while under the

influence of alcohol , Idaho Code § 18

- 8004(1)(a) . The district court imposed a unified sentence

of twelve years, with two years determinate. Maciel filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion

which the district co urt denied. 1 Maciel appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well es tablished and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-

1 Maciel does not appeal the denial of her Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.2 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.
1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707 , 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record
in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Maci e l ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 842 

To designate the United States Courthouse to be constructed in Jackson, 

Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the United States Courthouse to be constructed 

in Jackson, Mississippi, as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The United States Courthouse to be constructed at 

5 the site bounded on the north by Court Street, on the west 

6 by West Street, on the south by South Street, and on the 

7 east by President Street in Jackson, Mississippi, shall be 

8 known and designated as the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United 

9 States Courthouse’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 842 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the court4 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse’’. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#                                                                         Navy, Coast Guard test unmanned rescue craft                                                                    

##### by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Kim Martinez

21 March 2022VIRGINIA BEACH, Va.  -- 

                Official command seal of Navy Expeditionary Combat Command            

                NAVY EXPEDITIONARY COMBAT COMMAND SEAL-Final            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: NECC Public Affairs

VIRIN: 201029-N-BJ275-1001

Tags:
**NECC**NECF**Expeditionary**MSRON

Terms:
**NECC**Capabilities and Communities
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 655 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 655

 To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student achievement 
   and provide States with greater flexibility on assessment design.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2009

 Mr. Petri (for himself, Mr. Wu, Mr. Paul, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Baird, Mr. 
    Honda, and Mr. Castle) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To increase assessment accuracy to better measure student achievement 
   and provide States with greater flexibility on assessment design.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Assessment Accuracy and Improvement 
Act''.

SEC. 2. USE OF ADAPTIVE ASSESSMENTS.

    Section 1111 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(n) Use of Adaptive Assessments.--
            ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
        this Act, a State may provide that the assessments to be used 
        to measure student achievement by that State, and by the 
        schools and local educational agencies of that State, shall be 
        adaptive assessments (rather than the assessments otherwise 
        required by this Act) that accurately assess student 
        achievement above and below grade level while also measuring 
        grade-level performance.
            ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of paragraph (1), an 
        adaptive assessment is an assessment that changes its 
        difficulty according to the performance of a student but 
        reports the outcome of the assessment on a scale that is common 
        to all students.
            ``(3) Evaluation.--The State shall ensure that the protocol 
        for evaluating the adaptive assessments is included in peer 
        review guidance documents.''.
                                 <all>
```