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

IN 

# -GCMffc THESUPREMECOURTOFTEXA^ 12th Court cfAppei

NO. 12-0493

ELLEN LYNNE PATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS JAMES PATRICK, DECEASED, KRISTY L. PARKER AND JOSEPH P. PATRICK
v. WILLIAM CONNER, M.D. AND JEFF W. FIDONE, M.D. § § § ( • 

### CATHY S. I Smith County,

12th District.

January 18, 2013 

### Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.

•••••••••• 

### I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk ofthe Supreme Court ofTexas, do hereby certify that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear ofrecord in the minutes of said Court under the date shown. It is further ordered that petitioner, ELLEN LYNNE PATRICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS JAMES PATRICK, DECEASED, KRJSTY L. PARKER AND JOSEPH P. PATRICK, pay all costs incurred on this petition. 

### WITNESS my hand and seal ofthe Supreme Court ofTexas, at the City ofAustin, this the 13th day ofMarch, 2013.
Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk By Kathy Sandoval, Deputy Clerk

### The Twelfth Court ofAppeals 

### Tyler, Texas 

### Supreme Court No. 12-0493 Court of Appeals No. 12-10-00405-CV FILE COPY



### Please note Rule 18.5 Tex. R. App. P.: Ifthe Supreme Court declines to 

### grant review, any unpaid Supreme Court costs must be included in the court 

## ofappeals' mandate. Ifany fees remain outstanding in the above case, a fee list will accompany this receipt. 

## Certified Copy oforder in the above case received in the Court of Appeals on . By.

### Deputy Clerk
Willian Lee GRAY, petitioner, v. Pat VASQUEZ, Warden.

No. 17-5381.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed *299until October 23, 2017, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3751 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for the relief of 

interest on certain Federal student loans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2019 

Mr. SWALWELL of California (for himself and Ms. ESHOO) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide 

for the relief of interest on certain Federal student loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Student Loan In5 terest Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ZERO-INTEREST RATES FOR BORROWERS OF FED7 ERAL STUDENT LOANS. 

8 (a) INTEREST RATE FOR PART B LOANS.—Section 

9 427A of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

10 1077a) is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3751 IH

1 ‘‘SEC. 427A. APPLICABLE INTEREST RATES. 

2 ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin3 ning on the date of the enactment of the No Student Loan 

4 Interest Act, the Secretary shall annually cancel or repay 

5 the interest on each loan made or insured under this 

6 part.’’. 

7 (b) INTEREST RATE FOR PART D LOANS.—Section 

8 455(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

9 1087e(b)) is amended to read as follows: 

10 ‘‘(b) INTEREST RATES.— 

11 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

12 provision of law, loans made to borrowers under this 

13 part shall have an applicable rate of interest equal 

14 to zero. 

15 ‘‘(2) RATE.—The applicable rate of interest de16 scribed in paragraph (1) shall be fixed for the period 

17 of the loan. 

18 ‘‘(3) RULE FOR LOANS DISBURSED BEFORE

19 DATE OF ENACTMENT.—In the case of a loan made 

20 under this part for which the first disbursement was 

21 made before the date of the enactment of the No 

22 Student Loan Interest Act, the Secretary shall— 

23 ‘‘(A) cancel all interest due on such a loan; 

24 and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3751 IH

1 ‘‘(B) adjust the interest rate of such loan 

2 in accordance with paragraph (1).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

No. 84456 

# FLED MICHAEL MURRAY;AND MICHAEL RENO, INDIVIDUALLYAND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CARLI LYNN KIERNY, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and A CAB TAXI SERVICE LLC, A CAB SERIES LLC, F/K/A A CAB, LLC; AND CREIGHTON J. NADY, Real Parties in Interest. SEP 2 i 2022

0 41.1riPatti.ri tLjRT TheCT.CFt

-



### ORDER DENYING PETITIONFOR A WRITOFMANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of mandamus, in an action for unpaid wages, seeks a writ directing the district court to (1) terminate its order stayingthe enforcement ofjudgment pendingresolution ofthe appeal in Murray v. Dubric, Docket No. 83492 (Order of Affirmance, August 11, 2022);1 (2) modify the finaljudgment as directed by this court's opinion inA Cab, LLCv.Murray, 137Nev.,Adv. Op. 84, 501P.3d 961(2021); (3)consider

1

### Because this court entered an order of affirmance in Murray v. Dubric, Docket No. 83492, 2022 WL 3335982 (Nev.Aug. 11, 2022) (Order of Affirmance), we deny as moot petitioners' request for a writ directing the district court to lift the stay of enforcement pending resolution of that appeal.



### - `,Doc)2, SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

'047A,•C.J.S arraguirre on the merits petitioners' request for a receiver, as directed by this court in Murray v.A Cab Taxi Serv., LLC, Docket No. 82539, WL 2022 500818 (Nev. Feb. 17, 2022) (Order of Reversal and Remand); and (5) act promptly to enforce the finaljudgment.

Having reviewed the petition, answer, reply and accompanying appendices, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ reliefbearsthe burden ofshowingsuch reliefis warranted); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ reliefis an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.2

J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Carli Lynn Kierny, District Judge Hon. Maria Gall, District Judge Eighth Judicial District Court Department 9

2Without expressing any opinion as to the merits ofthis writ petition, we deny it without prejudice to petitioner's right to appeal from any appealable orders or judgment. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) 19-17A J.Leon Greenberg Professional Corporation Rodriguez Law Offices, P.C. Cory Reade Dows & Shafer Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

i( )/
II-00437

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Olle Gladso <ogladso@gmail.com>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 7:09 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Olle Gladso

412 High Street

Albert Lea, MN 56007
EXHIBIT 13.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Wealth Minerals Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended November 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hendrik Van Alphen, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.



Date:  June 15, 2007



/s/ Hendrik Van Alphen

Hendrik Van Alphen
President and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 74 (Monday, April 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Deferred Application From CHHD-C 
Developmental Biology.
    Date: April 29, 2022.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2131B, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Video Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Jolanta Maria Topczewska, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver 
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National 
Institutes Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Rm. 2131B, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 451-0000, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b6dcd9dad7d8c2d798c2d9c6d5ccd3c1c5ddd7f6d8dfde98d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bad0d5d6dbd4cedb94ced5cad9c0dfcdc9d1dbfad4d3d294ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: April 12, 2022.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-08205 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Vaughn Hoeflin STANDLEY, petitioner, v. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD.

No. 17-1378.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 29, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
mlfb_ex101.htm

EXHIBIT 10.1
  
 December 4, 2017
  
 Major League Football
 Attention: Frank Murtha
 Delivered via email
  
 Dear Mr. Murtha,
  
 I previously served as Chief Operating Officer for Major League Football (“MLFB”) since July 14, 2014. 
  
 On that same date, I entered into an employee agreement with our Company that provides for an annual salary of $240,000. Previously because of MLFB’s lack of capital, I agreed to waive all amounts of accrued salary due prior to December 31, 2015, 2016. 
  
 Additionally, I am owed $560,000 of compensation that has been accrued by MLFB at April 30, 2017. Based upon the events that have occurred at MLFB, please utilize this correspondence as my agreement to waive the $560,000 of accrued compensation at April 30, 2017 and I agree that no further compensation since April 30, 2017 is due to me.
  
 If you have any questions related to this correspondence, please contact me at your convenience.
  
 Sincerely,
  
 Richard Smith
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer, 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 on Form 10-Q of Borland Software Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Scott J. Arnold, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



| | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and results
of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ SCOTT J. ARNOLD    
|Scott J. Arnold        
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|August 9, 2005         



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Report),
irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
In Re Joseph Saul NEWLAND, petitioner.

No. 17-5432.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND 
  RULE 13a-14(b)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sense Technologies Inc. (the "Company")
  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 29, 2004 as filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
  in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant
  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and Rule 13a-14(b), that to his 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.



|Dated:   July 15, 2004 | By: /s/ Bruce E. Schreiner                
|---------------------- | ------------------------------------------
|                       | Bruce E. Schreiner                        
|                       | President and Principal Accounting Officer

---
#### J. E. Pickeron and Ralph Pickeron, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. State of Florida, *Defendant in Error.*

Division" A.

Decision filed May 28, 1929.

*W. T. Blndworth,*for Plaintiffsin Error;

*Fred II. Davis,*Attorney General, and *H. E. Garter,*Assistant, for the State.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the judgment herein and briefs and argument of- counsel for the -respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment *987to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said judgment. It is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged by the Court that the said judgment of the Circuit Court be, and the same is hereby affirmed.

Terrell, C. J., and Ellis and Brown, J. J., concur.
#### F. W. Woolworth Company, a Corporation, and Charles H. Johnson, *Plaintiffs in Error,*v. Mary N. McCloud, a Free Dealer, *Defendant in Error.*

En Banc.

Opinion filed April 16, 1929.

Petition for rehearing denied May 18, 1929.

*Marks, Marks & Holt*and *Giles J. Patterson,*for Plaintiffs in Error;

*John T. G. Crawford*and *Philip S. May,*for Defendant in Error.

Per Curiam

A judgment was rendered herein against the defendants below, plaintiffs in error here, for $17,500.00 damages, as joint *tore feasors.*Upon consideration of the record Mr. Chief Justice Terrell, Mr. Justice Whitfield *591and Mr. Justice Buford are of the opinion that on the particular facts shown the liability is joint, while Mr. Justice Ellis, Mr. Justice Brown and Circuit Judge Johnson, sitting in lieu of Mr. Justice Strum, disqualified, are of the opinion that the liability is not joint. All agree that the damages awarded are excessive. It is therefore considered, ordered and adjudged that if the plaintiff below shall remit $5,000.00 the judgment shall stand affirmed for $12,500.00, otherwise the judgment will stand reversed for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Terrell, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Brown and Buford, J. J., and Johnson, Circuit Judge, concur.

Strum, J., disqualified.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50367 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BENJAMIN MIRANDA-VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-2116-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Benjamin MirandaValencia raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 31.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John F. Craven, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Media Operations, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238, 34-47986 and 33-8618];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ JOHN F. CRAVENJohn F. CravenChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer)


Date: May 8, 2007
Steven R. REDD, petitioner, v. Sandra CORPE, et al.

No. 16-9735.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.