alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO **

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADDED BY **

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

| 1.     | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                         |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| 2.     | To                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by the report. |

|                                   |   |   |   |                                   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------|
| Date:                September 5, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/                William B. Hendry   |
|                                   |   |   |   | William                B. Hendry       |
|                                   |   |   |   | Chief                Financial Officer |

----
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15008]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. RP00-336-000, RP00-336-001 and RP00-336-002]


El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Technical Conference

June 8, 2001.
    On June 15, 2000, and August 15, 2000,\1\ El Paso Natural Gas 
Company (El Paso) submitted filings to comply with Order No. 637. 
Several parties have protested various aspects of El Paso's filing. In 
addition, on March 28, 2001, El Paso filed, in accordance with the 
Commission's February 26, 2001 order in Docket No. RP00-336-004,\2\ a 
proposal addressing system-wide capacity allocation issues. Numerous 
parties filed comments on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ El Paso's August 15, 2000 filing contains its segmentation 
plan.
    \2\ 94 FERC para. 61,225 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various 
issues raised by El Paso's filings will be held on Wednesday, July 18, 
2001, at 10 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The conference will continue through Thursday, 
July 19, 2001, if necessary. Parties protesting aspects of El Paso's 
filings should be prepared to discuss alternatives.
    All interested parties and Staff are permitted to attend.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15008 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1089 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1089

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 17, 2010.
Whereas Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, was founded as Augustana 
        Seminary under the auspices of the Augustana Synod on September 1, 1860;
Whereas the name Augustana comes from Confessio Augustana, the Latin rendering 
        of the seminal statement of the Reformation, the Augsburg Confession;
Whereas Augustana College was initially founded to train Lutheran pastors, 
        teachers, and musicians for the growing settlements of Swedish 
        immigrants in the United States;
Whereas Augustana College began classes in Chicago, moved to Paxton in 1863, and 
        then finally moved to its present location in Rock Island in 1875;
Whereas Augustana College has grown from serving 90 students in 1875 to serving 
        over 2,500 students today;
Whereas Augustana College's mission is to offer a challenging education that 
        develops qualities of mind, spirit, and body necessary for a rewarding 
        life of leadership and service in a diverse and changing world;
Whereas Augustana College offers undergraduate students an education rooted in 
        the liberal arts and sciences through 75 fields of study;
Whereas Augustana College has produced 131 Academic All-America athletes, the 
        sixth highest number of honorees among all schools in the Nation, 
        regardless of size;
Whereas alumni of Augustana College have gone on to achieve success in diverse 
        fields, including business, education, government and public service, 
        religion, arts and entertainment, and science, and include a Nobel Prize 
        winner, CEOs, and Members of Congress; and
Whereas 2010 marks the 150th anniversary of the establishment of Augustana 
        College: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) acknowledges and congratulates Augustana College in Rock Island, 
        Illinois, on the momentous occasion of its 150th anniversary and 
        expresses its best wishes for continued success;
            (2) commends Augustana College for its excellence in academics, 
        athletics, and quality of life for students; and
            (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Representatives to provide 
        Augustana College with enrolled copies of this resolution for 
        appropriate display.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15042]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,657; TA-W-38,657A]


Lanier Clothes Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., et al., 
Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification 
Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on 
March 7, 2001, applicable to workers of Lanier Clothes, Greenville, 
Georgia. The notice was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 
2001 (66 FR 18117).
    At the request of the company, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the fusing of men's suits. New information shows that worker 
separations occurred at the Oxford Transport facility of Oxford 
Industries, Inc., Buford, Georgia. The Buford Georgia facility provides 
administrative support services to the subject firms' production 
facilities, including Lanier Clothes.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending the certification to 
include the workers of the Oxford Transport facility of Oxford 
Industries, Buford, Georgia, and to correctly identify the subject firm 
title name to read Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., 
Greenville, Georgia.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, Inc., 
Greenville, Georgia who were adversely affected by increased imports.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38,657 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Lanier Clothes, Division of Oxford Industries, 
Inc., Greenville, Georgia (TA-W-38,657) engaged in fusing 
operations, and workers of Oxford Transport, Oxford Industries, 
Inc., Buford, Georgia (TA-W-38,657A) who became totally or partially 
separated from employment on or after February 19, 2001, through 
March 7, 2003, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under 
Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.


    Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of May, 2001.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 01-15042 Filed 6-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
NUMBER 13-21-00053-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI — EDINBURG 

 

CLEO SEABREAK, Appellant,

v.

L.S., Appellee.

 

On appeal from the 343rd District Court 

of San Patricio County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

Appellant Cleo Seabreak appealed a judgment rendered against her and in favor 

of appellee, L.S., a minor child, in trial court cause number S-19-5210CV-C in the 343rd 

District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. The parties to this appeal have now filed an 

agreed motion to dismiss the appeal. According to the motion, the appellant and the 
2

appellee “have agreed to the voluntary dismissal of this appeal,” that “this appeal should 

not affect the final judgment rendered by the trial court,” and that “the costs of this appeal 

should be taxed against the party incurring the same.” The parties further request that we 

render judgment effectuating their agreement.

The parties’ agreed motion requests relief that is not allowed by the appellate rules. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing the court to “dismiss the appeal or affirm the 

appealed judgment or order unless such disposition would prevent a party from seeking 

relief to which it would otherwise be entitled”); id. R. 42.1(a)(2) (allowing the court to 

render judgment effectuating an agreement, set aside the judgment without regard to the 

merits and remand, or abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to 

effectuate the agreement). Here, the parties’ requests that we dismiss the appeal and 

render judgment are mutually exclusive. Compare id. R. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing the dismissal 

of an appeal by motion), with id. R. 42.1(a)(2)(A) (allowing the rendition of judgment by 

agreement); see In re Marriage of McQueen, 597 S.W.3d 53, 54 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (order). Upon reviewing the agreed motion to dismiss, however, 

it appears that the parties to this appeal are specifically requesting that we dismiss the 

appeal, which, as requested, would not affect the final judgment rendered by the trial 

court.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the agreed motion to dismiss, is 

of the opinion that it should be granted as construed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Accordingly, we grant the agreed motion to dismiss and we dismiss the appeal. Pursuant 

to the agreement of the parties, costs will be taxed against the party incurring the same. 
3

See id. R. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the 

appellant.”). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing 

will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

JAIME TIJERINA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

11th day of March, 2021.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 145 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on Standards of Official 

Conduct in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 10, 2009 

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on 

Standards of Official Conduct in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES. 

3 For the expenses of the Committee on Standards of 

4 Official Conduct (hereafter in this resolution referred to 

5 as the ‘‘Committee’’), including the expenses of all staff 

6 salaries, there shall be paid, out of the applicable accounts 

7 of the House of Representatives for committee salaries 

8 and expenses, not more than $5,725,608.00 for the One 

9 Hundred Eleventh Congress. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 145 IH 

1 SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS. 

2 Of the amount specified in section 1— 

3 (1) not more than $2,735,247.00 shall be avail4 able for expenses incurred during the period begin5 ning at noon on January 3, 2009, and ending imme6 diately before noon on January 3, 2010; and 

7 (2) not more than $2,990,361.00 shall be avail8 able for expenses incurred during the period begin9 ning at noon on January 3, 2010, and ending imme10 diately before noon on January 3, 2011. 

11 SEC. 3. VOUCHERS. 

12 Payments under this resolution shall be made on 

13 vouchers authorized by the Committee, signed by the 

14 Chairman of the Committee, and approved in the manner 

15 directed by the Committee on House Administration. 

16 SEC. 4. REGULATIONS. 

17 Amounts made available under this resolution shall 

18 be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by 

19 the Committee on House Administration. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael DRAKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50045.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008. *

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

Michael J. Raphael, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Anne Gannon, Esq., USSA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jonathan D. Libby, Esq., FPDCA-Fed-eral Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

*567Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Michael Drake appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm, but remand to correct the judgment.

Drake contends that the condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to Abel testing is invalid because the district court failed to make heightened findings supporting the condition, and because the condition is not reasonably related to the goals of supervised release. These contentions are foreclosed. *See United States v. Stoterau,*524 F.3d 988, 1005-07 (9th Cir.2008).

Drake further contends that the condition of supervised release requiring him to submit to polygraph testing violates his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights. These contentions are also foreclosed. *See id.*at 1003-04.

Drake contends that the condition of supervised release prohibiting him from possessing any materials depicting or describing “sexually explicit conduct,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2), violates his First Amendment rights and is impermis-sibly vague and overly broad. This contention is foreclosed. *See United States v. Rearden,*349 F.3d 608, 620 (9th Cir.2003).

As the parties agree, the record discloses that the district court chose to strike the supervised release condition relating to weapons possession during its oral pronouncement of the sentence. We therefore remand to the district court with instructions to correct the judgment to exclude this condition. *See United States v. Hicks,*997 F.2d 594, 597 (9th Cir.1993).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED to correct judgment.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### *L.*Seville PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert CHAMBLISS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-16215.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 6, 2010.

L. Seville Parks, ELY, NV, pro se.

Kristen R. Geddes, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

*209Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

L. Seville Parks, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order to amend his complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. *Pagtalunan v. Galaza,*291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Parks’s action for failure to comply with a court order where the district court described the inadequacies of Parks’s complaint and gave him ample time to amend, and Parks failed to pursue the case for over six months without providing any reason for the delay. *See id.*at 642-43.

Parks’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

To the extent that there are any outstanding motions, they are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-03-118-CV

IN RE CHARLES W. BISHOP, II	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	WALKER, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:	 Juenne 198, 2003J
EXHIBIT 3.4




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT TO
 ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
 OF
 OPTIONS MEDIA GROUP HOLDINGS, INC.
 
 (Continued)
 
 
 The total number of shares of Common Stock that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is seven hundred million (700,000,000) shares. The total number of shares of Preferred Stock that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is ten million (10,000,000) shares.  The Preferred Stock may be issued in one or more series, each series to be appropriately designated by a distinguishing letter or title, prior to the issuance of any shares thereof.  The voting powers, designations, preferences, limitations, restrictions, and relative, participating, optional and other rights, and the qualifications, limitations, or restrictions thereof, of the Preferred Stock shall hereinafter be prescribed by resolution of the board of directors pursuant to Section 3 of this Article III.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: ARTHUR N, ECONOMOU, ARTHUR N. ECONOMOU & CO., INC. 

DOCKET NUMBER: 167 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT - CEA Docket No. 167 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Arthur N. Economou, 

Arthur N. Economou & Co., Inc. 

(New York, New York) 

The complaint charges that during the period from March 31 through June 30, 

1969, while a registered futures commission merchant under the Act, the 

respondent corporation failed to meet minimum financial requirements prescribed 

for futures commission merchants. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, March 31, 1970, in New York, New York. 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1102/2004

of 11 June 2004         

fixing the minimum selling prices for butter for the 143nd individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products (1), and in particular Article 10 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The minimum selling prices of butter from intervention stocks and processing securities applying for the 143nd individual invitation to tender, under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97, shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 11 June 2004.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 186/2004 (OJ L 29, 3.2.2004, p. 6).

(2)OJ L 350, 20.12.1997, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 921/2004 (OJ L 163, 30.4.2004, p. 94).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 11 June 2004 fixing the minimum selling prices for butter for the 143rd individual invitation to tender under the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2571/97

----
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed October 1, 2013.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01099-CV

THERESA BARNETT, Appellant

V.

DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-00136-F

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang-Miers, and Evans 

Opinion Per Curiam

The Court has before it appellees’ August 28, 2013 motion to dismiss and appellant’s 

September 6, 2013 response to that motion. On September 9, 2013, this Court denied appellant’s 

motion for damages and invited appellant to file an additional response to the motion to dismiss. 

Appellant filed three additional responses, but did not respond to appellees’ argument that 

appellant is attempting to appeal an interlocutory sanctions order. This Court does not have 

jurisdiction over such an order. See Petito v. Energytec, Inc., No. 05-09-00140-CV, 2009 WL 

1286330 at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 11, 2009, no pet.). Accordingly, we DISMISS this 

appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

131099F.P05
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

THERESA BARNETT, Appellant

No. 05-13-01099-CV V.

DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 10-00136-F.

Opinion delivered Per Curiam. Justices 

O'Neill, Lang-Miers and Evans sitting for 

the Court.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for want 

of jurisdiction.

It is ORDERED that appellees DAVID S. CROCKETT, ET AL. recover their costs of 

this appeal from appellant THERESA BARNETT.

Judgment entered this 1st day of October, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE