alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
E-ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN. TEXAS 78711 

March 18, 1977 

The Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 

Opinion No. H-959 

Re: Validity of Texas 

Youth Council Community 

Assistance Program funding 

formula. 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

You have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality of a community assistance funding formula of 

the Texas Youth Council. See V.T.C.S. art. 5143d, S 6. 

The formula would grant funds on the basis of reductions 

of committments of youths from the county to the Youth 

Council. You have asked whether this incentive to reduce 

commitments would violate article 2, section 1 of the Texas 

Constitution as an infringement upon the power of the 

judiciary to dispose of cases involving juveniles. 

Article 2, section 1 prohibits a person of one of the 

departments of state government from exercising powers 

properly attached to either of the other two departments. 

State Board of Insurance v. Betts, 308 S.W. 2d 846 (Tex. 

1958).The Ruth Council5 funding formula merely provides 

an incentive for a reduction in commitments to Youth Council 

facilities. The Youth Council has not attempted to limit 

its acceptance of such commitments or otherwise to require 

such a reduction. We do not perceive any exercise of 

judicial powers by the Youth Council. The funding formula 

is merely an incident of the exercise of the Council's 

administrative power to grant funds for local programs. 

Accordingly, in our opinion the funding formula does not 

violate article 2, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. 

p. 4000 
The Honorable Joe Resweber - page 2 (H-959) 

SUMMARY 

The Community Assistance funding formula 

of the Texas Youth Council does not violate 

article 2, section 1 of the Texas Constitution. 

ery truly yours, 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

KENDALL, First Assistant 

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 4001
EXHIBIT 32.1Certification     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), Stephen S.Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of Asyst Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), and Robert J. Nikl,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     1. The Company’s Quarterly Report for the period ended December 31, 2005, to which thisCertification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and     2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Dated: February 6, 2006   /S/ STEPHEN S. SCHWARTZ /S/ ROBERT J. NIKL   Stephen S. Schwartz, Ph.D. Robert J. NiklChief Executive Officer Chief Financial OfficerThis certification is not deemed to be “filed” for purposes of section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification isnot deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates itby reference.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1567

To amend the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian Democracies

and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 to eliminate the restriction

on assistance to Azerbaijan.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 27, 1999

Mr. KING (for himself and Mr. SNYDER) introduced the following bill; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To amend the Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian

Democracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992

to eliminate the restriction on assistance to Azerbaijan.

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 ‘‘Transcaucasus Peace,

5 Stability, and Democracy Act’’.
2

•HR 1567 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO

2 AZERBAIJAN.

3 The Freedom for Russia and Emerging Eurasian De4 mocracies and Open Markets Support Act of 1992 is

5 amended by striking section 907.

Æ
Timothy J. RIZZO, petitioner, v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., et al.

No. 18-1153.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1633 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1633

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
   the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1999

 Mr. Houghton (for himself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. English, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. 
 Crane, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Watkins, Mr. McInnis, Mr. Herger, 
Mr. Matsui, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. McCrery, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Sam Johnson of 
   Texas, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Hulshof, Mr. Levin, Mrs. 
 Thurman, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Dunn, Mr. Portman, Mr. Jefferson, 
  Mr. Cardin, Mr. Foley, and Mr. Camp) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the limitation on 
   the use of foreign tax credits under the alternative minimum tax.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LIMITATION ON FOREIGN TAX CREDIT UNDER ALTERNATIVE 
              MINIMUM TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 59(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit) is amended by 
striking paragraph (2) and by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as 
paragraphs (2) and (3), respectively.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 53(d)(1)(B)(i)(II) of such Code 
is amended by striking ``and if section 59(a)(2) did not apply''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
Michael A. YOUNG, petitioner, v. Vernon OLIVER, Judge, Superior Court of Connecticut, Tolland Judicial District, et al.

No. 18-8223.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
MAKAH INDIAN TRIBE, petitioner, v. QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE, et al.

No. 17-1592.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Motion of United Catcher Boats for leave to file a brief as *amicus curiae* granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Kevin R. CARMODY, petitioner, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 18-6160.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 25, 2019.

Petition for rehearing denied.
Mario Chester TABRON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8355.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Lamar WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. AMERICAN AUTO LOGISTICS.

No. 18-8367.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division denied.
Walter D. BOOKER, petitioner, v. T. JOHNSON, et al.

No. 18-8377.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2019.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
Allen GOLDEN, petitioner, v. Antoine CALDWELL, Warden.

No. 18-5159.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
Brian Keith UZZLE, petitioner, v. Lesley FLEMING, Warden.

No. 18-5086.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
John Douglas MITCHELL, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 17-9383.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 05/31/11          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      242,358
COMMITMENTS
  31,558   49,510   50,663  136,402  123,983  218,623  224,156   23,735   18,202

CHANGES FROM 05/24/11 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      6,718)
   5,950    3,551    4,334   -5,035     -828    5,249    7,057    1,468     -339

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    13.0     20.4     20.9     56.3     51.2     90.2     92.5      9.8      7.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      130)
      45       36       63       28       28      115      105
```

----

Updated June 3, 2011
Exhibit 10.20**AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT**This Amendment, dated January 30, 2008 (the “Amendment”), to the Executive Severance Agreement,dated __________________ (the “Agreement”), by and between Informatica Corporation (the “Company”)and **__________________** (“Executive”). Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaningdescribed to them in the Agreement.WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual representations, warranties, covenants andagreements contained in the Agreement, as amended, and for other good and valuable consideration,the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:The word “and” immediately preceding clause (iii) of Section 3(a) is hereby deleted and thefollowing clause (iv) shall be inserted as the final clause of Section 3(a) of the Agreementas follows:“and, (iv) a lump sum payment equal to Executive’s annual on-target bonus,commissions or variable earnings, assuming Company performance at 100% of targetfor Company bonus or commissions determination.”The Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, contains the entire agreement between the partieshereto and there are no agreements, warranties or representations which are not set forth thereinor herein. This Amendment may not be modified or amended except by an instrument in writing dulysigned by or on behalf of the parties hereto.This Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts, each of which shall bedeemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has executed this Amendment, in the case of theCompany by a duly authorized officer, as of the date first written below.COMPANY:INFORMATICA CORPORATION        By:    Date:  January __, 2008  Sohaib Abbasi    Chairman & CEO         EXECUTIVE:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ULTRATECH
STEPPER INC., FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          48,294
<SECURITIES>                                   121,838
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,553
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,706
<INVENTORY>                                     30,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               255,174
<PP&E>                                          30,460
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,878
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 290,168
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                     251,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   290,168
<SALES>                                         35,617
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                38,054
<CGS>                                           16,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,075
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,793
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   980
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,299
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,572
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,727
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.267
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.265
        

</TABLE>
Michael COLBAUGH, petitioner, v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 18-7610.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 1, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Hubert Dymitr HARASZEWSKI, petitioner, v. Joe A. LIZARRAGA, Warden, et al.

No. 17-6575.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 8, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAIN SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COUNTY SEAT
STORES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD AND
NINE MONTHS ENDED 10/31/98 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,377
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     83,906
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          40,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,647)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,526
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           86,900
<BONDS>                                         79,190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,526
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               219,349
<CGS>                                          161,766
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   86,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,852
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (40,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.02)
        

</TABLE>
IIB

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1191

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 27, 1999

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

AN ACT

To designate certain facilities of the United States Postal

Service in Chicago, Illinois.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 1191 RFS

1 SECTION 1. CARDISS COLLINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

3 Postal Service located at 433 West Harrison Street in Chi4 cago, Illinois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Cardiss Collins

5 Post Office Building’’.

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to such facility in

7 a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record

8 of the United States shall be considered to be a reference

9 to the ‘‘Cardiss Collins Post Office Building’’.

10 SEC. 2. OTIS GRANT COLLINS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

11 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

12 Postal Service located at 2302 South Pulaski Street in

13 Chicago, Illinois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Otis Grant

14 Collins Post Office Building’’.

15 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to such facility in

16 a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record

17 of the United States shall be considered to be a reference

18 to the ‘‘Otis Grant Collins Post Office Building’’.

19 SEC. 3. MARY ALICE (MA) HENRY POST OFFICE BUILDING.

20 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

21 Postal Service located at 4222 West Madison Street in

22 Chicago, Illinois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Mary Alice

23 (Ma) Henry Post Office Building’’.

24 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to such facility in

25 a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record
3

HR 1191 RFS

1 of the United States shall be considered to be a reference

2 to the ‘‘Mary Alice (Ma) Henry Post Office Building’’.

3 SEC. 4. ROBERT LEFLORE, JR. POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

5 Postal Service located at 50001 West Division Street in

6 Chicago, Illinois, is hereby designated as the ‘‘Robert

7 LeFlore, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference to such facility in

9 a law, regulation, map, document, paper, or other record

10 of the United States shall be considered to be a reference

11 to the ‘‘Robert LeFlore, Jr. Post Office Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 1999.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
Charles J. GREENE, petitioner, v. ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.

No. 18-7319.

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.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 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 Interland, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Allen L. Shulman,
Chief Financial 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 to the best of my 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 and results of operations of the
Company. Date: December 27, 2004 /s/ Allen L. ShulmanAllen L. ShulmanSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
and Executive Counsel 32
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1575 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1575

  To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit fees charged by 
 financial institutions for the use of automatic teller machines, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 1999

 Mr. Hinchey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to limit fees charged by 
 financial institutions for the use of automatic teller machines, and 
                          for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair ATM Fees for Consumers Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

    Section 903 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693a) 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting a semicolon; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
            ``(12) the term `electronic terminal surcharge' means a 
        transaction fee assessed by a financial institution that is the 
        owner or operator of the electronic terminal; and
            ``(13) the term `electronic banking network' means a 
        communications system linking financial institutions through 
        electronic terminals.''.

SEC. 3. CERTAIN FEES PROHIBITED.

    Section 905 of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (12 U.S.C. 1693c) 
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(d) Limitation on Fees.--With respect to a transaction conducted 
at an electronic terminal, an electronic terminal surcharge may not be 
assessed against a consumer if the transaction--
            ``(1) does not relate to or affect an account held by the 
        consumer with the financial institution that is the owner or 
        operator of the electronic terminal; and
            ``(2) is conducted through a national or regional 
        electronic banking network.''.
                                 <all>
```