alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Andrew S. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 6, 2015

No. 04-15-00175-CV

TEXAS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellant

v.

Andrew S. MCGAHEY,

Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-12185

Honorable Richard Garcia, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Texas Mutual Insurance Company appeals the trial court’s orders on cross-motions for 

summary judgment signed February 27, 2015. Our review of the clerk’s record raises questions 

regarding our jurisdiction over this appeal.

A summary judgment order “is final for purposes of appeal if and only if either it actually 

disposes of all claims and parties then before the court ... or it states with unmistakable clarity 

that it is a final judgment as to all claims and all parties. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 

191, 192-93 (Tex. 2001). The record before us reflects that Texas Mutual Insurance Company 

sued Andrew S. McGahey and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ 

Compensation, seeking review of a final decision of the workers’ compensation division 

awarding income benefits to McGahey and seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the 

Department’s interpretation and application of a section of the Texas Labor Code. Texas Mutual 

filed a motion for summary judgment. The Department filed a plea to the jurisdiction, and both 

the Department and McGahey filed cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court 

referred the case to an associate judge. The record contains a handwritten associate judge’s 

report that indicates the judge’s rulings would be rendered in separate signed orders. Our record 

contains two orders signed on February 27, 2015: an order that denies Texas Mutual’s motion for 

summary judgment and an order that grants McGahey’s motion for summary judgment. 

However, neither order expressly disposes of any issue or party in the case and neither order 

contains any finality language. Moreover, although McGahey’s motion for summary judgment 

prayed for attorney’s fees and costs, the order granting his motion for summary judgment does 
not dispose of the claims for fees and costs. Finally, nothing in the record before us purports to 

dispose of Texas Mutual’s claims against the Department. 

We therefore order appellant to show cause in writing to this court no later than May 21, 

2015 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If a supplemental clerk’s 

record is required to demonstrate our jurisdiction, appellant must (a) ask the trial court clerk to 

prepare the record, and (b) notify this court that such a request was made. If necessary, the court 

will entertain a motion to briefly abate the appeal to allow the trial court to sign a final judgment, 

if such was the trial court’s intent. We further order the appellate deadlines suspended until 

further order of this court.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. MOORE

No. 309 PC.

Case below: 53 N.C. App. 371.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 October 1981.
#### STATE v. LEE

No. 54.

Case below: 24 N.C. App. 666.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 2 April 1975.
---

CONSENT OF QUALIFIED PERSON

|    |                                                                                      | September 6, 2011
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------
|TO: | United States Securities Exchange Commission                                         |                  
|    | Washington, D.C. 20549                                                               |                  
|    |                                                                                      |                  
|    | RE:       Rockwell
      Diamonds Inc. (the Corporation) Consent under FORM
  20-F

I confirm that I have read the disclosure in the Companys Form
on 20F for the 2011 fiscal year, and that these documents fairly and accurately
represent the information in the Report that supports the disclosure.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Submitted this 6th day of September 2011.

Signed

*T.R. Marshall*__________________________

T R Marshall (Dr)Geological Consultant (Pr.Sci.Nat.)

---
#### STATE v. EVANS

No. 51.

Case below: 40 N.C. App. 730.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 June 1979.
Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-03496-WHP Document 8 Filed 06/14/2007 Page 7 of 7
wyy_ex41






Exhibit 4.1












DESCRIPTION OF THE REGISTRANT’S SECURITIES



REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE



SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


 


As of
December 31, 2019, WidePoint Corporation (“we” or
“our”) had one class of securities, common stock, par
value $0.001 per share (“Common Stock”), registered
under Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. The following description of our Common Stock is a summary
and is subject to, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to, the provisions of our Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation and our Bylaws, copies of which are incorporated by
reference as Exhibits 3.1 and 3.2, respectively, to our Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 of which
this Exhibit 4.1 is a part.


 


Our
authorized capital stock consists of 110,000,000 shares of Common
Stock, $.001 par value per share, and 7,954,286 shares of preferred
stock, $0.001 par value per share. As of December 31, 2019,
83,861,453 shares of Common Stock were issued and outstanding and
no shares of preferred stock were issued and
outstanding.


 


Our
Common Stock is traded on the NYSE MKT under the symbol
“WYY.” Holders of our Common Stock are entitled to one
vote for each share held on all matters submitted to a vote of
stockholders and do not have cumulative voting rights. Holders of
Common Stock are entitled to receive ratably such dividends, if
any, as may be declared by the board of directors out of funds
legally available therefore, subject to a preferential dividend
right of outstanding preferred stock. Upon the liquidation,
dissolution or our winding up, the holders of Common Stock are
entitled to receive ratably our net assets available after the
payment of all debts and other liabilities and subject to the prior
rights of any outstanding preferred stock. The rights, preferences
and privileges of holders of Common Stock are subject to, and may
be adversely affected by the rights of the holders any series of
preferred stock that we may designate and issue in the
future.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1339

___________________________

Matthew T. White

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph

____________

 Submitted: October 23, 2014

Filed: October 29, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Matthew T. White appeals the district court’s order affirming the denial of 1

child’s insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, we conclude that the administrative

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western 1

District of Missouri.
law judge’s (ALJ’s) opinion is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a

whole, including new evidence the Appeals Council considered. See Davidson v.

Astrue, 501 F.3d 987, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2007). Specifically, we find no validity to the

challenges White raises to the ALJ’s determination of his residual functional capacity

(RFC). See Eichelberger v. Barnhart, 390 F.3d 584, 591 (8thCir. 2004) (claimant has

burden of establishing RFC; factors in RFC determination). The judgment of the

district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00340

- CR

M ARCOS E NRIQUE U RDANETA

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 371st District

Court

of Tarrant County ( 1566970 )

October 3, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice

Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
#### James S. Hamilton, plaintiff in error, *vs.*B. A. Willingham, defendant in error.

When a note was given by principal and security, during the war, which, at the close of the war, was scaled to a gold standard, a new note given by principal alone for the amount thus sealed, and the new note accepted by the payee, in the discharge of the first note, this is a novation of the original contract, and the Relief Act of 1870 is inapplicable to it, and no payment of taxes was necessary.

Novation. Relief Act of 1870. Tax Affidavit. Before Judge Gibson. McDuffie Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1871.

Plaintiff in error brought complaint against defendant in error on a promissory note, dated January 30, 1866, due one day after date, for the sum of $494 32. It appeared from the evidence that the note sued on was given in renewal of a note made in 1863, with security, for about $3,000; that the original note was scaled down to a gold basis, according to a table of values; that the second note was signed by the principal alone. The Court charged the jury as follows: to-wi*t,*A note given after the war closed for a note payable in Confederate money is a renewal of the old note; and unless there is an entire change of the principal parties, there is no novation, and the cases cited in 40 Georgia Reports, 195, 487, do not apply to this case.” The Court further charged the jury that an affidavit that all legal taxes had been paid was necessary to a recovery. The jury found in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff excepted to the charge of the Court.

William Reese; Charles H. Shcokley, for plaintiff in error.

E. H. Pottle, for defendant.

*501Montgomery, Judge.

The facts of this case show a clear novation under Revised Code, sections 2125 and 2827. The release of the surety by the principal, the forbearance to sue, and the acceptance of a gold note, sealed down, when taken together, was such a new consideration, moving from the payee of the note to the maker, as to bring the case fully within the provisions of the sections of the Code referred to, and to sustain the judgment as announced in the syllabus, that when a note was given by principal and security, during the war, which, at the close of the war, was scaled to a gold standard, a new note given by principal alone for the amount thus sealed, and the new note accepted by the payee, in the discharge of the first note, this is a novation of the original contract, and the Relief Act of 1870 is inapplicable to it, and no payment of taxes was necessary.

Judgment reversed.
#### STATE v. HELMS

No. 39 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 601.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 7 October 1975. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 7 October 1975.
Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-03479-AKH     Document 7      Filed 09/06/2007     Page 2 of 2
#### STATE v. POLLOCK

No. 217P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 257.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 May 1982. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 May 1982.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER REINSTATING APPEAL

Appellate case name: Darrell Glen Nervis-Peters v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00831-CR

Trial court case number: 1519293

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

This appeal was abated and remanded to the trial court to issue findings of fact and 

conclusions of law regarding its certification that appellant waived his right to appeal. A 

supplemental clerk’s record has been filed containing the requested findings of fact and 

conclusions of law. Accordingly, we lift the abatement ordered by this Court and reinstate the 

appeal on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting individually 

Date: October 9, 2018
#### EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMM. v. YOUNG MEN’S SHOP

No. 57 PC.

Case below: 32 N.C. App. 23.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 7 March 1977.
#### IN RE FORECLOSURE OF DEED OF TRUST

No. 5 P 82.

Case below: 55 N.C. App. 68.

Petition by petitioners for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 March 1982.
#### STRICKLAND v. TANT

No. 240 PC.

Case below: 41 N.C. App. 534.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 10 September 1979.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 19 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 19

 To exempt health insurance of residents of United States territories 
           from the annual fee on health insurance providers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 3, 2019

   Mr. Rubio introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To exempt health insurance of residents of United States territories 
           from the annual fee on health insurance providers.

    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 ``Territory Health Insurance Tax 
Relief Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE OF RESIDENTS OF UNITED STATES TERRITORIES 
              EXEMPT FROM ANNUAL FEE ON HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 9010(b) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(4) Exception for health insurance of residents of united 
        states territories.--
                    ``(A) In general.--Solely for purposes of paragraph 
                (1)(A), the term `United States health risk' shall not 
                include the health risk of any individual who is a bona 
                fide resident of Guam, American Samoa, the Northern 
                Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands (as 
                determined under section 937(a)).
                    ``(B) Exception not to increase fee allocation.--
                The amount determined under paragraph (1)(B) shall be 
                determined without regard to subparagraph (A) of this 
                paragraph.''.
    (b) Reporting.--Section 9010(g)(1) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act is amended by inserting ``(and the amount of such 
net premiums to which subsection (b)(4)(A) applies)'' before the period 
at the end.
    (c) Effective Date.--
            (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
        apply to calendar years beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act.
            (2) Transitional rule for reporting.--For purposes of 
        applying the amendment made by subsection (a) with respect to 
        the first calendar year beginning after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury (or the 
        Secretary's designee) shall provide a method for covered 
        entities to report the information described in the amendment 
        made by subsection (b) for the calendar year which precedes 
        such first calendar year.
                                 <all>
```
#### BEALL v. BEALL

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 26 N.C. App. 752.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 November 1975.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 71325)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), 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 General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, E. coli Model Organism Resource.                    

*Date:*                         December 13, 2005.                    

*Time:*                         10:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Brian Pike, PhD., Office of Scientific Review, National Institutes of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 3AN18, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3907,                         *pikbr@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: November 15, 2005.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 05-23352 Filed 11-25-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      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 filing of the Form 10-Q
of The Lamson & Sessions Co. (the "Company") for the period ended July 2, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on July 27,
2005 (the "Report"), the undersigned officer of the Company certifies that, to
such officer's 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request. This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and shall not be deemed to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any
purpose whatsoever.

July 27, 2005

                                     /s/ John B. Schulze
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    John B. Schulze
                                    Chairman of the Board, President and
                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)