alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Honorable Tm Swy county Attorney Amarillo, Texar Dear Sir:

wereoeived your lot our opinion In
other etatute firemen and ode or any employment of over 30,000 habitants?” the houra of employment

, Penal Code, Seoyfire department or olty of more than twentyhabitant8 rhall be rety 

### for more than sir (0) days
all be unlawful ior any city of ty-five thousand (76,000) lnhable or permit any auoh ilremen and polioomen to workmore than twelve (1.2) hours per oalendar day or more than sevent9-tro (7Z) hours in any one oalendar week and n noevent, more than one hundred forty-tour (i44) hours In anytwo (2) oonseoutlve oalendar weeks ln the dirohargo of their dutlea exoept In oese of @norgenoy whloh mayarise where it ma **beoome**neoe8- sax-yto work more than twelve (183 

### hour8per Oalendar day or more than seventy-two (7E) hours in

.- ..__.. _- -._-_ .--.__. I-Hon. Tomhay, **Pa ’** **age 2.** 

any one calendar week or more then one hundred fortyfour (144) hours in any two (2) oonsecutlve calender weeke for the proteotlon of property or.hume+n life; said firemen and polioomen shall draweddltlonal oompeneatlon Sor the numberof hours worked in addition to the regular twelve (12) hour oelender day, or morethen the regular seventy-two (72) hours In any one oalender week or morethen the regular one hundred forty-rour (144) hours in any two (2) ooneecutlve oeldnder weeks or If required to work onany **day** whloh has been designated as the day of the week that such memberof said department should not be required to be on duty, additional oompeneatlon et the rate of time and one-half over time computed upon the basis of their monthly salary shall be paid to them’for such additional time a8they are required to work.” Froma oarsful reading of the above statute it is apparent that the statute. doea not undertake to regulate the hours 0r employment 0r firemen and polloomen In any oltlee or towns exoept thoee having a population of more than seventy-rive thousand (75,000) inhabitante. The statute has noepplloatlon to cities andtowns having a population of less than seventy-five thousand (75,000), clndour answer to your question, therefore, la in the negative. Your6 very truly ATTORNZ!f

GENERAL



### OFTEXAS

GRL:Ud APPROVZDAUG24, 1939 Gerald C. Kann (slqned) ATTORNEY

GENEMLOFTEXAS **BY** Glenn R. LswIs(signed) Assistant

(Stamped: ) Approved

Opinion Committee By: R.W.F.,Chalrmen
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1162 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1162

                       One Hundred Sixth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

           Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday,
             the twenty-fourth day of January, two thousand

                                 An Act

 
To designate the bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses the Ohio 
 River between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, as the ``William 
                          H. Natcher Bridge''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The bridge on United States Route 231 that crosses the Ohio River 
between Maceo, Kentucky, and Rockport, Indiana, shall be known and 
designated as the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the bridge referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``William H. Natcher Bridge''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Wallace Dixon COX, et ux., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 18M107.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARGARITA VEJO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, a public 

entity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

LEWIS & CLARK COLLEGE, an Oregon 

public benefit corporation; DOES, 1 through 

50, inclusive, 

Defendants.

No. 18-36094 

D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01656-AA 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Oregon

Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 18, 2019**

San Francisco, California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 14 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Before: McKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges, and BASHANT,*** District 

Judge.

This is the second appeal in this case following the panel’s remand in a 

Memorandum Disposition dated June 6, 2018. The parties are familiar with the 

procedural history and the facts, so we do not repeat them here.

Although the panel did not explicitly rule on the state law discrimination 

claim in the Memorandum Disposition, we did so "by necessary implication." 

United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443, 452 (9th Cir. 2000). At the 

heart of both a § 1983 equal protection claim and Oregon's publicaccommodation-discrimination statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403, is the question 

of intentional discrimination. Compare Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist., 

324 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) ("To establish a § 1983 equal protection 

violation, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants, acting under color of state 

law, discriminated against them as members of an identifiable class and that the 

discrimination was intentional") with Harrington v. Airbnb, Inc., 348 F. Supp. 3d 

1085, 1089 (D. Or. 2018) (Oregon's public-accommodation-discrimination statute 

is a "discriminatory intent" statute, not a "discriminatory effect" statute, and 

requires a showing of intentional discrimination). When we determined Vejo's § 

*** The Honorable Cynthia A. Bashant, United States District Judge for 

the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
3 

1983 claim failed due to the absence of intentional discrimination, we necessarily 

implicated the failure of the Oregon public-accommodation-discrimination claim 

as well. None of the exceptions to the application of the law-of-the-case doctrine 

apply here, nor does Vejo argue they do. 

Vejo also argues that even if the law-of-the-case doctrine applies to the state 

law claim against Petra Callin (“Callin”) and Roberta Cooper (“Cooper”), it does 

not apply to the claim against Portland Public Schools (“PPS”). Blue Br. 11. As 

Vejo's state law claim against PPS is derivative of Callin and Cooper's conduct, it

fails for the same reason. 

We affirm the district court’s dismissal of the state law claim and the grant 

of defendants’ renewed motion for summary judgment with regard to the state law 

claim.

AFFIRMED.
Jacqueline Lenorlia TAYLOR, petitioner, v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION.

No. 18-7051.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

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

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

December 28, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134515 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134515 

 COA: 274365 

St. Clair CC: 02-000189-FH 

DEAN PHILIP ANDREWS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 18, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1217 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

December 28, 2007 

 Clerk
In Re Jose Joaquin RAMIREZ, petitioner.

No. 18-7890.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 01, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 01, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A16I0067. MADISON EARLEY v. DUSTIN SHAW et al..

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

SU15DR241
In Re Ajay KAJLA, petitioner.

No. 17-588.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of mandamus denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Lapis Technologies, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Harry Mund, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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 and 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.


August 15, 2005                              /s/ Harry Mund
                                            -----------------------
                                            Harry Mund
                                            Chief Executive Officer
Mario GONZALEZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7345.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 19, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal L 411/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 411 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 637 December 2020 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 411

English edition

Legislation

Volume 637 December 2020

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1990 of 3 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2020/1990 of 3 December 2020 amending Decision 2010/452/CFSP on the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia, EUMM Georgia

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,642,509
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,634,362
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (15,030)
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,908,661
<PP&E>                                         1,376,392
<DEPRECIATION>                                 567,026
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 6,001,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,827,050
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    200
<COMMON>                                       14,661
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,738,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   6,001,665
<SALES>                                        5,541,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,541,393
<CGS>                                          4,141,865
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,834,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (7,815)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (294,204)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   12,237
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (306,441)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (306,441)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.03)
        

</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, et al., petitioners, v. NEW YORK, et al.

No. 18-966.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 21, 2019.

Petitioner's brief on the merits, and any *amicus curiae* briefs in support of petitioners or in support of neither party, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, March 6, 2019. Respondents' briefs on the merits, and any *amicus curiae* briefs in support of respondents, are to be filed on or before Monday, April 1, 2019. The reply brief on the merits is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Scott KASEBURG, et al., petitioners, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, et al.

Thomas E. Hornish, et al., petitioners, v. King County, Washington, a Home Rule Charter County.

No. 18-838.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 61/24 F

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 61 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6024 February 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 61

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6024 February 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 61/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 January 2017 to 31 January 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 61/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 January 2017 to 31 January 2017(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of EmergisoftHolding, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ash R. Huzenlaub, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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. 

 

/s/ Ash R. Huzenlaub

Ash R. Huzenlaub 

Chairman of the Board, President 

and ChiefExecutive Officer 

May 12, 2003
Lawrence Montgomery FOLTZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8101.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Carlton WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7726.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
<PAGE>



                            COHEN & KAMENY CPA'S PLLC
                       3530 Henry Hudson Parkway, Suite B
                            Riverdale, New York 10463


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT


We hereby consent to the use in the Form 10 Registration Statement of our report
as of March 31, 2000, dated April 12, 2000, relating to the financial statements
of Charm Capital, Corp. that appear in such Form 10.


                            Cohen & Kameny CPA'S PLLC
                          Certified Public Accountants


Riverdale, New York
April 12, 2000
Anthony Bernard WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-6026.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Reginald HOUGH, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-7846.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 18, 2019.

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

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


      We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-77299, 333-89523, 333-42118, 333-42112, 333-42110, 333-54614,
333-66754, 333-99627 and 333-109687; and Form S-3 Nos. 333-51754, 333-42120,
333-45304, 333-51754, 333-66752 and 333-109683)of Informatica Corporation of our
report dated January 16, 2004, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Informatica Corporation included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.


                                                /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Palo Alto, California
March 8, 2004
Saulo Arahon Hernandez ALMARAZ, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7202.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 22, 2018.

*939Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Andrew BENNETT, et al., petitioners, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY, ALABAMA.

No. 18-1018.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 4, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# muiteb**~tate~** 

# Qtourtof**£'lppeaI~** 

# for tbe jf 

# eberaI Qtircuit

ALONZO DAY, 

### JR., Claimant-Appellant, 

### v. ERIC 

### K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OFVETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee.

2012-7035 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 09-4491, Judge Robert N_ Davis.


### ONMOTION

ORDER Upon review of this recently docketed appeal, it appears that Alonzo Day, Jr.'s appeal was not timely filed. On August 16, 2011, the United States Court of Ap· peals for Veterans Claims enteredjudgmentin Day's case. The court received Day's notice of appeal on October 24, 2011,69 days after the date ofjudgment.DAYv. DVA 2 To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by the Court ofAppeals for Veterans Claims within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Accordingly, 

### IT Is ORDERED

### THAT: (1) Day is directed to show cause, within 30 days of the date of filing ofthis order why this appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may also respond within that time. (2) The briefing schedule is stayed.


## JAN 

## 1i 

## 2012 Date

cc: Alonzo Day, Jr. ElizabethA. Speck, Esq. s19 FOR THE COURT
lsI Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly. Clerk



### FILED U.S. COURTOFAPPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT



### JAN 172012

JANHORBAlV 

### ClERK