alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 No. RP99-381-007]

Take notice that on January 5, 2001, Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd. (WIC) tendered for filing as part if its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 2, the sheets listed on Appendix A and Appendix B to the filing, to become effective on the dates indicated on each sheet.

WIC asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued September 27, 2000 in Docket No. RP99-381 approving settlement and granting interlocutory appeal. Specifically, this filing reflects the transportation rates from January 1, 2000 forward for consenting and contesting parties. 

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 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 and protests 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.

[FR Doc. 01-1256  Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-17-00348-CR

Kevin Brian Morris

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County (1512506D)

December 28, 2017

Per Curiam 

(nfp)

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.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
EXHIBIT U

Request for Confidential Treatment of Certain Information

Included in the TeraExchange, LLC Form SEF

TeraExchange, LLC has requested confidential treatment pursuant to Sec. 145.9 of the 

Commission’s regulations for all of the information included in the exhibits indicated below.

Exhibits in their Entirety Grounds on which Confidential Treatment 

is Requested under Part 145.9

Exhibit A § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit B § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit D § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit E § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit F § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit H § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit I § 145.9 (d)(ii); § 145.9 (d)(iii)

Exhibit K § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit L § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit N § 145.9 (d)(ii); § 145.9 (d)(iii)

Exhibit O § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit Q § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit S § 145.9 (d)(ii)

Exhibit V § 145.9 (d)(ii)
#### UNITED STATES v. Needham C. BARBOUR, [ XXX XX XXXX ], Fireman (E-3) U. S. Navy.

NCM 78 1413.

U. S. Navy Court of Military Review.

15 Jan. 1979.

CDR S. Gaeta, Jr., JAGC, USN, Appellate Defense Counsel.

LT J. G. Van Winkle, JAGC, USNR, Appellate Government Counsel.

Before DUNBAR, GREGORY and GLADIS, JJ.

GREGORY, Judge:

In his single assignment of error on appeal, appellant contends that the military judge made an inadequate inquiry into the existence of a plea bargain. On two occasions, the military judge inquired whether a pretrial agreement existed in this case and was advised by the trial counsel that there was none. (R. 5, 10). Nothing was heard from appellant or his counsel on this point.

Appellant argues that this questioning by the military judge was not complete enough to satisfy the requirements of *United States v. Green,*1 M.J. 453 (C.M.A.1976). He notes that *Green*requires the military judge to ascertain whether a “plea bargain” exists and that in military practice the term “pretrial agreement” has come to connote merely a written document. *See United States v. Johnson, 2*M.J. 541, n.1 (A.C.M.R.1976). He indicates “plea bargain” includes more than “pretrial agreement.” Appellant contends the military judge in this case was obligated to inquire also of the accused and his counsel to determine whether any informal agreements existed between counsel or between the accused and the convening authority.

An almost identical issue was presented and found to be without merit in *United States v. May,*No. 78 0149 (N.C.M.R. 22 August 1978). Although we considered a military judge to be well-advised to address the existence of a plea bargain with the accused personally, we found no error in a failure to do so. We also indicated that we considered it almost impossible that an accused could enter into an agreement concerning his trial or his pleas without his counsel’s knowledge. Finally, we noted that counsel are under an ethical duty to respond truthfully to a military judge’s in*807quiry and that an opposing counsel would be obligated to come forward and inform the military judge if he was not in agreement with his trial counterpart’s representations to the military judge. *Cf. United States v. Bobko,*No. 77 2250 (N.C.M.R. 28 March 1978).

A military judge is justified in relying on the responses he receives from counsel. In this case, it was proper for the military judge to infer from the response of trial counsel that no agreements of any kind existed. No further inquiry was required. *United States v. May, supra; United States v. Hlavaty,*No. 77 1671 (N.C.M.R. 10 March 1978), *pet. denied*5 M.J. 270 (C.M.A.1978).

Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence as approved on review below are affirmed.

Senior Judge DUNBAR and Judge GLADIS concur.
# C_2018042EN.01002701.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/27

---

Order of the General Court of 7 December 2017 — Acsen v Parliament and Council

(Case T-381/17) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Directive 2011/35/EU - Merger of public limited liability companies - Nullity of the merger - No distinction between absolute nullity and relative nullity of the merger - Time-limit for bringing an action - Delay - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 042/40)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ibram Acsen (Bucharest, Romania) (represented by: C. Gagu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: M. Pencheva and C. Ionescu Dima, acting as Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Petrova Cerchia and A. Varnav, acting as Agents)

Defendants:

Re:

Re:

Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU seeking the partial annulment of Article 22(1)(c) of Directive 2011/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies (OJ 2011, L 110, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Ibram Acsen is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Ibram Acsen is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 14.8.2017.

1

---
Translation of Loan Agreement dated in January 2009



 Exhibit 10.33 

Loan Agreement 
 Party A:
Mingyang Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Party B: Guangdong Mingyang Longyuan Power & Electronic Co., Ltd. 

In accordance with Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China and related laws and regulations, Party A and Party B enter into following
agreement through negotiation: 
 1. Party A shall lend RMB 717,000.00 to Party B as business capital. 

2. Borrowing period: from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (changes determined by both parties through negotiation). 

3. Date of repayment: before December 31, 2009. In case of changes, notice shall be sent. 

4. This agreement shall take effect after both parties sign names and affix seals, and remain valid until carry-over of such claim and liability upon
expiration. This agreement is executed in duplicate with each party holding one copy. 
  

			
	Party A: Mingyang Wind Power Technology Co., Ltd.	  	Guangdong Mingyang Longyuan Power & Electronic Co., Ltd.
	Signature:	  	Signature
	Date: January 1, 2009	  	Date: January 1, 2009
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 for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony 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 Alda
----------------------
Principal  Executive  Officer
September 17, 2004


                                    E - 3
<PAGE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

February 19, 2019 Session

STEVEN WILLIAMS v. GATEWAY MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County

No. CC16CV2392 Ross H. Hicks, Judge

___________________________________

No. M2018-00939-COA-R3-CV

___________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in the result of the majority’s opinion insofar as it affirms the dismissal of 

the action on the basis, set forth in Section V, that Dr. Johnson was not an employee of 

Gateway Medical Center and, consequently, did not have access to Ms. Williams’ 

medical record. I concur with the holding in Section IV A that the omission of an 

expiration date on the HIPPA authorization was insignificant and did not keep the form 

from being substantially compliant with Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-

121(a)(2)(E). I respectfully disagree with the holding in Section IV B that the failure of 

Mr. Williams to check the box to authorize access to specific medical records makes the 

authorization non-compliant. In my opinion, the purpose of the authorization form is to 

allow the recipient to receive the records pertinent to the case, thus serving as a bypass to 

the normal procedures for discovery governed by the Tennessee Rules of Civil 

Procedure. Consistent with the letter and spirit of the discovery rules, any deficiency in 

the authorization forms that limit the recipient’s ability to obtain the pertinent records 

should be addressed in accordance with Rule 26. 

_________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE

04/18/2019
**Exhibit 99.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THEUNITED STATES CODE

 

 

I, HarveyBeker, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield Corporation, theManaging Owner of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”), certify that (i) the AnnualReport of the Trust on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Annual Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Trust.

 

 
| Date:  | March 28,  2003 |   |   |                        |
|--------|-----------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------|
|   |            |   | /s/    | Harvey Beker                |   |
|   |            |   |   | Harvey Beker                |
|   |            |   |   | Co-Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
## lt3;8M*>l ALko—jJr Cto.ft-C.js efltx_ C- Leroe-riJ-5 /Uvjit

### 1&-0-L 7f/fi<L-9&0 6> jLk_C_ -9- 

### bdi ^TjCujslc* W1AC HZS.&n -ThizM ^^ 

## I RECEIVED M" -wmroFcmmmiappeals" MAY-292015 A&elAcoste.Cteric



### 7 

### ftoi/^ A^-^nx 4~ * 7^ 4 ^ je. 

### j2lL^jde_JmLL

ou. i 

### O^ m«j UTL£ 

## g^i- r\v



## TT^u gm- me Q ^Ia^ W mCj S-pjC <?x :^^ (k(L&L_To :do.u)Kcut X 3^L_5s_Jo *P^

"TTl^U Sao ^0 VrcjKn jjfl J^3-A±£4^ :x LUQ S CqiAniu Housi or\ (atipV /"/,-e u 

### SLAc^e cmAn 4- V-eA- my, V-iifoc* iK j Lawyer 7^^ /n 

### oHor ^Tr-egA-en ftu^ 7Xe_-. ZSoAcje fi^ K-p- "7^ (J. 

## \Y\ CWrV -ftarl ?•£ ^ olid* lj Slu\ up "4« m.-e 

### Qn^yvx^ "7q /7u_Vo<n Q.Yre^-f form or\ COQ,^ fr\ i\ LM i_^_ 

### u Loyvr. atcA Sq( <j 0>j\vJ 77/?^ j,UY N^ Cou-fA £>ua> m



## ^Pcil^ WkGa Vj^\\ClV ^0 cjo QK~ Qfo\r naan>e.cj "7> 

## j \^nd.u *irv \\^-e or' OaT Alu'^ uj'ill yn U_jGUX^ 

## -^e// /p? u)Ucp\ zC dm n/n mjj /Uo/n J Uatfe n/n/Sf.

£ /7 ^ (7^ /7?^ '^UK5 /c*\r/e. & d£ AS'tl-7fJi3Shinrvi's /ft/3e t'Cor-es ^ /S'Z.y/Atl JZouu&e-M. •-1&12JZ90-A IfAJ 'li*3Mg£LJ&-. pAJe ni feirJK " lo~3-6( 'Dffp rj^ JuJyen^i-l-] 5-tpYam \><r f7'"~ ^.^OJ— 1 o\- ftmvlel o^

- ,X^]^oor Co n-a m \V^A CLy\o\*e, oo - «X - /(g

- 3-^ o^ L4\J*r W*^* &<U\ss-a -S. hUrp^r (/ ^h C/tou 5/c/V ^ejefc
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Ju ne 15, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00171

- CV

Leticia RODRIGUEZ 'Cross

- Appellee',

Appellant

v.

Lydia RODRIGUEZ and Robert Pereida 'Cross

- Appellants', Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI19456 Honorable Cynthia Marie Chapa , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 9, 2021, the court reporter Mary O. Berry filed a notification of late record, notifying this court that the reporter’s record has not been filed because (1) appellant has failed to request the record, and (2) appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record.

It is therefore ORD ERED that appellant Leticia Rodriguez provide proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that appellant has requested the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record, which request must designate the portions of the proceedings and

the exhibits to be included. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b)(1).

It is further ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten (10) days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arra ngements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee.

The reporter’s record must be filed no later than thirty (30) days after the date appellant’s written proofs are filed with this court. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty (30) days from the date the clerk’s record is filed, and the court will consider only those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(c)._________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 15th day of June, 2021

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz

, Clerk of Court
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03- 09 -00 031 -CR

G r e go r y A nt honyRo dr igu e z , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. CR-07 -06 5 , HO NORAB LE JACK H. RO B ISO N , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A jury found appe llant Greg ory Anthony Rodrigue z guilty

of thirteen c ounts of ag g ravated sexual assault, indece ncy with a child, and se x ual assault committed ag ai n s t t he two daug hters of his ex-g irlfriend. A ppellant’s appointed attorney has filed a brief concluding that the appea l is frivolous and without merit.

Counsel’s brief

me e ts th e re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif

or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 743-44 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of the rec ord and d em o n s t ra t i n g that there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5, 80 (1 98 8) ; An de rs , 386 U.S. at 74 3- 44 ; Hi

gh v . S tate , 5 73 S.W. 2d

80 7, 81 1- 13 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 68 4, 68 4 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 436 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Ap pe llant’ s att orn ey

se nt a pp e lla nt a c op y of the br ie f a

nd a dv ise d h im that he ha d th e ri g ht t oNo substitut e counsel will be appointed. Should appe llant w ish to seek f urther r eview of 1 his case by

the cour t of criminal appe als, he must either r etain an at t o rn ey t o fi l e a petition for discretionar

y revie w or file a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. See ge nerally Tex. R. App. P. 68-79 (g overningproce eding s in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals). An y p et i t ion for dis c re tio na

ry re vie w mus t be fi le d with in t hir ty da y s f ro m th e date of

e ith e r t his op ini on

or the date this Court overrules the last ti m ely motion for rehe aringfiled. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.2. The petition must be filed with this Court, a fter which it will be forwa rded to the court of c ri m inal appea ls a long with the rest of the filings in the c ause. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discr etionary

revie w should comply

with rules 68.4 and 68.5 of the rules of

appellate proce dure. See Tex. R. App. P . 68.4, 68.5. 2 examine the rec ord and f ile a pro se brief. Se e An de rs , 3 86 U. S. at 74 4; J ac k son v. S tate , 485 S.W .2d 553, 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). No pro se br ief ha s been f iled. We h a ve c on sid e re d th e re c or d a nd c ouns e l’ s bri ef an d a g re e that th e a pp e a l is frivolous and with o u t merit. We have re viewed the evidenc e pre sented to the jury and the pr oc e dure s th a t w e re ob se rv e d and fi nd no thi ng in the re c or d that mig ht argua bly su pp or t th e a pp e a l. We gr ant counse l’s motion to wit hdrawand af firm the judg ment of convic tion. 1

______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: January

13, 2010 Do No t Pu

bli sh
(105 So. 922)

#### W. H. DANIEL v. Minnie L. McNARON et al.

(6 Div. 383.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 22, 1925.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, in Equity; William M. Walker, Judge.

M. B. Grace, of Birmingham, for appellant.

A. Leo Oberdorfer and Roderick Beddow, both of Birmingham, for appellees.

BOULDIN, J.

The question is one of fact. We agree with the finding of fact reached by the trial court. The decree is affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. 1 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 22, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10149 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SEALED APPELLANT 1 Defendant-Appellant,

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (USDC No. 4:03-CV-1233)

_________________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * We are in receipt of the district court’s March 20, 2006 order, wherein it notifies this court that (1) Appellant wishes to waive any benefit she received from this court’s March 3, 2006 ruling, and (2) that it has found by a preponderance of the evidence that2

Appellant has recovered from her mental illness and defect to such an extent that her conditional release under the regimen of care and treatment prescribed would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person, or serious damage to property of another. Given this notification there is nothing for this court to resolve and this case is closed.
Exhibit
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350
 (SECTION
906 OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)
 
 In
connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of, Corporate Outfitters, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Michael Barron, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Lee Shorey, Chief Financial
Officer and both respective Directors of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.
 
 Dated:  November
26, 2008
 
 By:  /s/ Michael
A. Barron
 Michael
A. Barron, Chief Executive Officer
 and
Director
 
 By:  /s/ Lee
Shorey
 Lee
Shorey, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director