alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 2 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 3 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 4 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 5 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 6 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 7 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 8 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 9 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 10 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 11 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 12 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 13 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 14 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 15 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 16 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 17 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 18 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 19 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 20 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 21 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 22 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 23 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 24 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 25 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 26 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 27 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 28 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 29 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 30 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 31 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 32 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 33 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 34 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 35 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 36 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 37 of 38
Case 7:07-cv-05815-KMK-MDF Document 12-4 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 38 of 38
- Page 1
- Page 2
- Page 3
Exhibit G-5

RTX H: Certificate of Good Standing
Delaware

The First State

Page 1

 

6347983 8300 Authentication: 202929988

SR# 20221032020 Date: 03-16-22

You may verify this certificate online at corp.delaware.gov/authver.shtml

I, JEFFREY W. BULLOCK, SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF

DELAWARE, DO HEREBY CERTIFY "RTX HOLDINGS, INC" IS DULY

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE AND IS IN GOOD

STANDING AND HAS A LEGAL CORPORATE EXISTENCE SO FAR AS THE RECORDS

OF THIS OFFICE SHOW, AS OF THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, A.D. 2022. 

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ANNUAL REPORTS HAVE

BEEN FILED TO DATE.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE SAID "RTX HOLDINGS,

INC" WAS INCORPORATED ON THE TWENTY-NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER, A.D.

2021.

AND I DO HEREBY FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE FRANCHISE TAXES HAVE

BEEN PAID TO DATE.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket Nos. RP96-129-014 and RP91-54-014]

      ( print page 24131)    
Take notice that on April 23, 2001, Trunkline Gas Company (Trunkline) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A to the filing, to become effective May 1, 2001.

                    Trunkline states that this filing is being filed to implement the terms of the January 29, 2001 Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. RP96-129-000 and RP91-54-000 (Not Consolidated) (Settlement). The Settlement has been approved by the Commission's Order Approving Settlement issued April 12, 2001.[1] 

Trunkline states that copies of the filing are being served on all jurisdictional customers, interested state regulatory agencies and parties to this proceeding.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www/​ferc/​fed/​us/​online/​rims. htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www/​ferc/​fed/​us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             95 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2001).                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 01-11892  Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
(82 South. 893)

#### Ex parte BEASLEY.

(3 Div. 410.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 26, 1919.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

Rushton, Williams & Crenshaw, of Montgomery, for appellee.

MAYFIELD, J.

Application of Wilbur F. Beasley for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment of the said court reversing and remanding the cause of James S. Dowdell and E. B. Joseph v. Wilbur F. Beasley, 82 South. 40. Writ denied.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

Before the 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION 

___________________________________ 

In the Matter of the Application 

of KalshiEX LLC for 

Designation as a Contract Market 

___________________________________ 

ORDER OF DESIGNATION 

 KalshiEX LLC (“Kalshi”) has submitted to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

(“Commission”), pursuant to Section 5(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”), 7 U.S.C. § 

7(a), and Commission Regulation 38.3(a), 17 C.F.R. § 38.3(a), an application for designation as 

a contract market, which includes submissions dated December 30, 2019 through September 17, 

2020. Having reviewed Kalshi’s application, the Commission makes the following findings and 

rulings: 

 WHEREAS Commission staff reviewed Kalshi’s application for designation as a contract 

market, including Kalshi’s rules, and conducted a technical evaluation of Kalshi’s operational 

capabilities to evaluate whether Kalshi was in compliance with the core principles and 

corresponding regulations in accordance with Section 5(d) of the Act, 7 U.S.C 7(d)(1). 

 WHEREAS based on its review, staff concludes that Kalshi’s application, including all 

amendments thereto and representations made by Kalshi, demonstrates compliance with the 

applicable requirements of the Act and the Commission’s regulations for designation as a 

contract market.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO 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 report of Heckmann Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, the undersigned, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of our knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 8, 2008



|       |  |                                                       |  |  |  |        |  |                                                                                       
|------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ Richard J. Heckmann                               |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Brian R. Anderson                                                                 
|Name:  |  | Richard J. Heckmann                                   |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Brian R. Anderson                                                                     
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |  |  |  | Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer
and Principal Accounting Officer)

This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. The certification shall not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Secretary of the Company and will be retained by the Office of General Counsel of the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 99.1


            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Gary F. McNear, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of Hy-Tech Technology Group, Inc. on Form 10-KSB for the year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
10KSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of Hy-Tech Technology Group, Inc.


                                   By: /s/ Gary F. McNear
                                       ------------------
                                   Name: Gary F. McNear
                                   Title: Principal Executive Officer

<PAGE>
# C_2019172EN.01003301.xml

| 20.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2019 — Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO (Representation of two facing arches)

(Case T-804/17) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing two facing arches - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 172/45)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Stada Arzneimittel AG (Bad Vilbel, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented initially by D. Hanf and D. Walicka and subsequently by D. Hanf and E. Markakis, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 September 2017 (Case R 1887/2016-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign representing two facing arches as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Stada Arzneimittel AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 42, 5.2.2018.

---
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 13 Filed 04/28/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS Document 13 Filed 04/28/2008 Page 2 of 2
cme ®@

Chicago Mercantile Exchange

20 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7499
www.cme.com

March 22, 2006

Ms. Jean A. Webb

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21" Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

RE: CME Rule 300.E. =
Submission No. 06-27

Dear Ms. Webb:

Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (“CME” or “Exchange”) hereby notifies the Commission that
the Exchange approved a minor amendment to CME Rule 300.E. (“Committees — Disciplinary Offenses
Defined”) to reflect that Exchange Committees are not making findings with respect to certain fines.
With the elimination of the majority of functional committees as part of the Exchange's demutualization
plan, responsibility for the implementation of the automatic fine schedules for violations of CME Rule
536 (“Recordkeeping Requirements for Pit, GLOBEX, and Negotiated Trades”) and CME Rule 515
(“Registration and Identification of Broker Associations”) was transferred to Exchange staff. In addition,
Exchange staff implements the automatic sanctions issued pursuant to CME Rule 513 (“Conduct,
Apparel and Badges’).

The necessary rule change appears below, with deletions overstruck.

300. COMMITTEES
[Sections A— D are unchanged.]
300.E. Disciplinary Offenses Defined

"Disciplinary offense” is defined as a:

1. Violation of an Exchange rule designated by the Exchange as requiring disqualification from service on the
above committees, which list of rules shall be posted in a public place;

2. Violation of any other Exchange rule unless: (a) such violation did not involve fraud, deceit or conversion, (b)
such violation did not result in suspension or expulsion, or (c) the-cernmittee—ot_jurisdiction-specificaly
makes-afinding-that the violation is based solely on: (i) decorum or attire, (ii) financial requirements, or (iii)
reporting or recordkeeping requirements which receive cumulative fines of $5,000 or less within any
calendar year;

[The remainder of the rule is unchanged.]


The Exchange certifies that this regulatory advisory neither violates nor is inconsistent with
any provision of the Commodity Exchange Act or of the rules and regulations thereunder.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please call me at (312) 648-5422.

Sincerely,

/S/ Stephen M. Szarmack
Director and Associate General Counsel

‘SMS/elm/5679 SUB 06-27
#### UNITED STATES v. Dale Wayne CUNNINGHAM, [ XXX XX XXXX ], Equipment Operator, Construction Recruit (E-1), U. S. Navy.

78 0925.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

Sentence Adjudged 15 March 1978.

Decided 29 Sept. 1978.

*560LT Christopher C. Henderson, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT Sander Mednick, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before DUNBAR, Senior Judge, and BAUM and GLADIS, JJ.

BAUM, Judge:

Appellant, citing *United States v. Fife,*20 U.S.C.M.A. 218, 43 C.M.R. 58 (1970), has summarily assigned as error that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction because appellant did not submit his request to be tried by military judge until after findings. In this case the judge, during an Article 39(a), 10 U.S.C. § 839(a) session, accepted appellant’s plea of guilty and entered findings as authorized by paragraph 53d, *Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1969*(Revised edition), and Section 0113, JAG Manual. Thereafter, but still prior to assembly of the court, the judge advised appellant of his right to trial by judge alone and approved appellant’s written request for such a trial. The judge then assembled the court and proceeded with the trial. Article 16, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 816 authorizes trial by military judge alone “ . . .if before the court is assembled the accused, knowing the identity of the military judge and after consultation with defense counsel, requests in writing a court composed only of a military judge and the military judge approves.” The statutory requirements for trial by judge only were met in this case thereby investing jurisdiction in the court-martial. The case cited by appellant in support of his assigned error, while stating that the accused did not submit his written request for trial by a military judge until after findings, fails to set forth any other facts bearing on the matter, such as whether the request was before or after assembly of the court or whether the findings were based on properly entered pleas of guilty or not. Furthermore, the opinion goes on to find jurisdictional error “For the reasons set forth in *United States*v. *Dean,*20 U.S.C.M.A. 212, 43 C.M.R. 52 (1970),” which set forth the principle that a request for trial by military judge has to be made strictly in accord with the statute in order for there to be jurisdiction. In the instant case, as stated before, the statute has been followed to the letter and we find that there was jurisdiction.

The findings and sentence as approved below are affirmed.

Senior Judge DUNBAR and Judge GLADIS concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-41253

Conference Calendar

 

RONALD MIXON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHELLE HATTENBACH; JASPER E. ARMWOOD; 

DAVID M. BLACKWELL; LEPHER JENKINS; MARK A. DIAZ,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-97-CV-402

- - - - - - - - - -

April 10, 1998

Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Mixon, prisoner # 536575, appeals the dismissal of

his civil rights action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e). Because Mixon’s case contained no arguable basis in

law or fact, it is frivolous, and the district court did not err

in dismissing it. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193

(5th Cir. 1997). 

Mixon’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 
No. 97-41253

-2-

1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
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 Annual Report of NS8 Corporation  (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB/A  for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004 as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony
J. Alda,  Principal  Executive Officer 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.

     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.


/s/  Anthony J. Alda
--------------------
Principal Executive Officer
August 28, 2006