alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 780 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 780

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To promote the safe use of the Internet by students, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Student Internet Safety Act of 
2009''.

SEC. 2. PROMOTING THE SAFE USE OF THE INTERNET BY STUDENTS.

     Each local educational agency that receives funds under part D of 
title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) or part A of title IV of such Act (20 U.S.C. 7101 
et seq.) may use such funds to develop and implement programs that 
promote the safe use of the Internet by students, such as programs 
that--
            (1) educate students about appropriate online behavior, 
        including interacting with individuals on social networking Web 
        sites and in chat rooms;
            (2) protect students against online predators, 
        cyberbullying, or unwanted exposure to inappropriate material; 
        or
            (3) promote involvement by parents in the use of the 
        Internet by their children.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 16, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 780

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To promote the safe use of the Internet by students, and for other 
                               purposes.
```
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 9 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

 

                Inconnection with the Form 10-K of INVESTools Inc. (the “Company”) as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Paul A. Helbling, Chief Financial Officer, certify that the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 

 
|   | /s/ PAUL A. HELBLING |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | Paul A. Helbling     |
|   | March 18, 2003       |

 

 

----
# C_2009154EN.01001902.xml

| 7.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/19

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

2009/C 154/10

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned route | Le Havre–Lyon (Saint Éxupéry) |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 10.1.2010 to 9.1.2014 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | — | for application (1st step): 7.9.2009 (16.00 local time) |

Member State

France

Concerned route

Le Havre–Lyon (Saint Éxupéry)

Period of validity of the contract

From 10.1.2010 to 9.1.2014

Deadline for submission of tenders

—

for application (1st step): 7.9.2009 (16.00 local time)

| — | For tenders (2nd step): 12.10.2009 (16.00 local time) |
| --- | --- |

—

For tenders (2nd step): 12.10.2009 (16.00 local time)

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the pubic tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

| Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie du Havre |
| --- |
| Esplanade de l’Europe |
| BP 1410 |
| 76067 Le Havre cedex |
| FRANCE |
| Tel. +33 235546500/01 |
| Fax +33 235546520 |
| E-mail: pthibaut@havre.cci.fr |

Chambre de Commerce et d’Industrie du Havre

Esplanade de l’Europe

BP 1410

76067 Le Havre cedex

FRANCE

Tel. +33 235546500/01

Fax +33 235546520

E-mail: pthibaut@havre.cci.fr

---
October 5, 2006

Via E-Mail

Office of the Acting Secretary
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certification. NYMEX Submission 06.112: Notification
of Housekeeping Change to NYMEX Rule 6.57, Post-Close
Trading Session.

Dear Ms. Eileen Donovan:

The New York Mercantile Exchange ("NY MEX" or the "Exchange") is notifying the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) of a housekeeping change
to NYMEX Rule 6.57, Post-Close Trading Session.

The housekeeping change adds the word “metals” in the first paragraph to be consistent
with “in all energy and metals futures and options contracts,” as there is a post-close trading
session in Platinum and Palladium. Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the attached notification
complies with the Act, including regulations under the Act.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Nancy Minett, Vice
President, Compliance, at (212) 299-2940, or the undersigned at (212) 299-2897.

Very truly yours,

Thomas F. LaSala
Senior Vice President
Compliance and Risk Management

ce: Nancy Minett
Brian Regan


(Bold underlining indicates additions.)

Rule 6.57 Post-Close Trading Session

Rule 6.57, Post-Close Trading Session. Ten (10) minutes after the close of trading in all energy
and metals futures and option contracts traded on the NYMEX trading floor, or five (5) minutes
after the closing range is established for all applicable contract month other than contract months
in the Sour Crude Oil futures contract, whichever is later, trading shall resume for a period of two
(2) minutes (the "Session") in all energy and metals futures and option contracts, subject to the
following conditions:

(Remainder of the Rule is unchanged.)
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
AGREEMENT



      IT  IS  AGREED that effective October 1, 1998  between
Delta  Petroleum  Corporation ("Delta") and Amber  Resources
Company  ("Amber") that, subsequent to October 1, 1998,  all
management-related and general and administrative  costs  of
Amber  and  Delta,  except direct costs  for  a)  LOE's;  b)
royalties;  and c) similar company specific items  shall  be
borne by Delta for which Amber shall pay Delta $25,000 on  a
quarterly basis.



                              AMBER RESOURCES COMPANY


                              BY: s/Roger A. Parker
                                   Authorized Officer


                              DELTA PETROLEUM CORPORATION


                              BY: s/Aleron H. Larson, Jr.
                                   Authorized Officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 21, 2019

No. 04-19-00271-CV

Prema DURAIRAJ,

Appellant

v.

Govindasamy DURAIRAJ, Individually; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the G. Durairaj 

Children's Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee of the Govingdasamy and Prema Durairaj 

Living Trust; Govindasamy Durairaj, as trustee in the derivative capacity of Suriya Family 

Limited Partnership; and Vijai Durairaj;

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI13549

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, Prema Durairaj’s 

petition for permission to appeal is DENIED, and this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF 

JURISDICTION. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d),(f). Costs of this appeal are 

taxed against the petitioner, Prema Durairaj.

It is so ORDERED on August 21, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of August, 2019.

___________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
ON REHEARING

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6234 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN SAMUEL LEIGH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00057-WCB; 3:04-cv-00022-WCB)

Submitted: July 9, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Henry Nave, CHARLES H. NAVE, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for

Appellant. Thomas Oliver Mucklow, Assistant United States

Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

John Samuel Leigh seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We

previously dismissed the appeal, but subsequently granted

rehearing. The order is not appealable 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

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 that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

Although the district court erroneously concluded that

Leigh failed to file timely objections to the magistrate judge’s

recommendation, we have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Leigh has not made the requisite showing for issuance

of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.
- 3 -

DISMISSED
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 18

- 00044

- CV

I N THE M ATTER OF M.N. §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 323rd District Court

of Tarrant County (323

- 105773

- 17)

April 18, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has con sidered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
**Exhibit 23.1**

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM

The Board of Directors

Investools Inc.

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Registration No.333-118330 and Registration No. 333-75070) on Form S-8 of Investools Inc.of our reports dated March 16, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedbalance sheets of Investools Inc.  as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ (deficit)/equity and comprehensive loss and cashflows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2006, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of  internal controlover financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness ofinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, whichreports appear in the December 31, 2006, Annual Report on Form 10-K ofInvestools Inc. Our report dated March 16, 2007, on management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006, expresses our opinion that Investools Inc. did not maintain effectiveinternal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 because ofthe effect of a material weakness on the achievement of the objectives of thecontrol criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph that states that theCompany’s information systems and processes associated with accounting forrevenue were inadequate to appropriately identify specific customertransactions and facilitate the recognition of revenue in accordance withGenerally Accepted Accounting Principles. 
| /s/ KPMG LLP         |   |
|----------------------|--------|
| KPMG LLP             |
| Salt Lake City, Utah |
| March 16, 2007  |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05348-AKH Document 27 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
NO. 07-01-0367-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

APRIL 3, 2002

______________________________

JOSE S. GONZALES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-436732; HONORABLE CECIL G. PURYEAR, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Jose S. Gonzales has appealed from his conviction of the offense of

aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and the resulting punishment of 35 years

confinement in the Institutional Division of the Department of Criminal Justice. Although
2

he was represented by court-appointed counsel during trial and the time for filing a motion

for new trial, he filed a pro se notice of appeal. 

By letter dated March 14, 2002, we informed appellant that his brief was due to be

filed by December 5, 2001, and that we had received neither a brief nor a motion for

extension of time to file a brief. We further informed appellant that if we did not receive a

satisfactory response by March 25, 2002, the appeal would be abated. On March 25,

2002, we received a letter from appellant stating that his court-appointed attorney, whom

appellant represents to be the same attorney he had at the trial court level, is “supposed

to be taking care of this.” He further represents that he has not heard from his attorney.

 By letter dated March 27, 2002, appellant asserts that he still wishes to pursue his appeal

but that his attorney “has done nothing but lie” to him. 

This state of affairs necessitates that we abate this appeal to the 137th District Court

of Lubbock County for a hearing as provided for in Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(b)(2).

Upon remand, the judge of the trial court shall immediately cause notice to be given and

conduct a hearing to determine:

1. Whether appellant has abandoned his appeal.

2. If appellant has not abandoned his appeal, whether appellant’s attorney

will diligently pursue the appeal. If not, the trial court shall determine if

appellant is still indigent and if the appointment of another attorney is

necessary. 

3. If appellant is not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the

appeal or whether appellant has failed to make the necessary arrangements

for prosecuting his appeal, and if he has not done so, what orders are

necessary to ensure those arrangements be made.
3

4. If it be determined that another attorney should be appointed, the name,

address, and State Bar of Texas identification number of the attorney

appointed.

5. If any other orders are necessary to ensure the diligent and proper pursuit

of appellant’s appeal.

In support of its determinations, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings

of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental

reporter’s record. Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court

no later than May 6, 2002. 

It is so ordered. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
consolidated  condensed  statement of financial  condition and the  consolidated
condensed  statement  of income and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         9,723
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         497
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    165,338
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         1,075
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           1,074
<LOANS>                                        271,096
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 468,124
<DEPOSITS>                                     245,812
<SHORT-TERM>                                   25,310
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            9,424
<LONG-TERM>                                    133,810
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       63,434
<OTHER-SE>                                     20,503
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 468,124
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                5,009
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2,570
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               5
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               7,584
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             1,848
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3,437
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          4,147
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  125
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                             579
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1,726
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     1,726
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   999
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.17
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                 3.90
<LOANS-NON>                                    2,081
<LOANS-PAST>                                   176
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                526
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1,727
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  42
<RECOVERIES>                                   25
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1,835
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           1,835
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                            0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        0
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GelTech Solutions, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael Cordani, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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.



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | /s/ MICHAELCORDANI     
| | Michael Cordani,       
| | Chief Executive Officer



Date:  February 14, 2008

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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            5434
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           32579
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                       6924
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           19380
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             19290
<LOANS>                                         187514
<ALLOWANCE>                                       1747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  261446
<DEPOSITS>                                      164028
<SHORT-TERM>                                       500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1236
<LONG-TERM>                                      11682
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       84000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  261446
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   8677
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  344
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   908
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  9929
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                3916
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                4260
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             5669
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      110
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   3023
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3317
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3317
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.48
<LOANS-NON>                                       5295
<LOANS-PAST>                                       356
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  1716
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       79
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 1747
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1747
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>