alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michael /s 

# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antoni o, Texas**  March 4, 2015 N o. 04
- 15
- 00040
- CV TEMPLETON MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Appellant v. Michael MIDDLETON , Appellee From the 216th Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas Trial Court No. 10
- 422 Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding 

### ORDER The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. It reflects that in the underlying cause number, 10
- 422, Michael Middleton , as reflected in his second amended petition, sued Templeton Mortgage Corporation and Enos Hampton, as Independent Executor of the Estate of Betty G. Robinson. Gary M. Poenisch then filed a petition in intervention. On October 15, 2014, the trial court signed a default judgment as to Templeton Mortg age Corporation. That same day, the trial court also signed a default judgment in favor of Intervenor Gary M. Poenisch against Templeton Mortgage Corporation and severed Poenisch’s claims against Templeton Mortgage Corporation into a separate cause , 10
- 422 A . Templeton Mortgage Corporation then filed notices of appeal in both Cause No. 10
- 422 and Cause No. 10
- 422A. 1 The appeal relating to Trial Court Cause No. 10
- 422 was assigned this Appeal No., 04
- 15
- 00040
- CV. The appeal relating to Trial Court Cause No. 1 0
- 422A was assigned Appeal No. 04
- 15
- 00041
- CV.

1 The companion appeal, No. 04
- 15
- 00041
- CV, concerns Templeton Mortgage Corporation’s appeal from Trial Court Cause No. 10
- 422A of the default judgment signed in favor of Gary Poe nisch .With regard to this Appeal No. 04
- 15
- 00040
- CV, the clerk’s record does not reflect that a final judgment has been signed by the trial court disposing of all claims and parties. It therefore appears that we ha ve no jurisdiction over this appeal. We, therefore, ORDER A ppellant Templeton Mortgage Corporation to show cause in writing by March 19, 2015 why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We suspend all appellate deadlines pending our determination of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 4th day of March, 2015 .

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
k 4>\\a. ^o, tiNo^ v^ ^^e ^A-wnfrF. Mffmteu^ nsyioL r^i ,.-w.w -^ ffow v,n- "TW^ auo^l-Vfyv 4k •°i u^r"Ug^\ Ora^r4nn-l-;TVA fe>^ l^AJg -Vo ?-;W 4-kkrer^/vaV Qppl.fvlkEv^ 

### cv-H Acinar* -gsrs/v^- ^uia>4jp^ ^r^o'^f. ^«A &1Urgrlkp*vN. ^r^-^f ^V'U Wu^Aa ftn&^*ir-for /jibed*>. too, 4^l qoW\ !£2^_ 

### ^pt^lA aooeA^o^ i^ vu .jV^ -m^>^ 4ha£^£: r_gy\ bsmO (*M *gsteUs JQA-e^- rr/-^ ^\ cL^i- id$i>W; "jl vvG^v^r rgXvgJgx^ gy>-g. .a /vA-a "-kwirbrr..^^ .*"-£- lT^AI Ve3r\xfi\ \T Se&^v •fts s^es^^OoCg O^Cfl-/^ 5-^ /7"5^7crfSk^^^J^ktfe^i 

### irtlttB^Cte^
Exhibit 32.1

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

This certification is not to be deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a
part of the Annual Report of UTStarcom, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report").

In
connection with the Report, we, Jack Lu and Edmond Cheng, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002, that:



Dated:
March 16, 2011

By:

/s/ JACK LU Name: Jack Lu
Title:President and Chief Executive OfficerBy:

/s/ EDMOND CHENG Name: Edmond ChengTitle:Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 143

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to standardize the

physical examinations that each boxer must take prior to each professional boxing match and to require a brain CAT scan every 2 years

as a requirement for the licensing of a boxer.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 to

standardize the physical examinations that each boxer

must take prior to each professional boxing match and

to require a brain CAT scan every 2 years as a requirement for the licensing of a boxer.

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 ‘‘Professional Boxing

5 Safety Act Amendments of 1999’’.
2

•S 143 IS

1 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROFESSIONAL BOXING

2 SAFETY ACT OF 1996.

3 (a) STANDARDIZED PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS.—Sec4 tion 5(1) of the Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996

5 (15 U.S.C. 6304(1)) is amended by inserting after ‘‘exam6 ination’’ the following: ‘‘, based on guidelines endorsed by

7 the American Medical Association, including a circulo-res8 piratory check and a neurological examination,’’.

9 (b) CAT SCANS.—Section 6(b)(2) of the Professional

10 Boxing Safety Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 6305(b)(2)) is

11 amended by inserting before the period the following:

12 ‘‘and, with respect to such renewal, present proof from

13 a physician that such boxer has taken a computerized

14 axial tomography (CAT) scan within the 30-day period

15 preceding that date on which the renewal application is

16 submitted and that no brain damage from boxing has been

17 detected’’.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1625 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1625

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
special reclassification rule for certain old agencies as new agencies 
             under the home health interim payment system.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 23 (legislative day, September 22), 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a 
special reclassification rule for certain old agencies as new agencies 
             under the home health interim payment system.

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

SECTION 1. SPECIAL RECLASSIFICATION RULE FOR CERTAIN OLD AGENCIES AS 
              NEW AGENCIES UNDER THE HOME HEALTH INTERIM PAYMENT 
              SYSTEM.

    (a) BBA Amendment.--Section 1861(v)(1)(L) of the Social Security 
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1)(L)) (as amended by section 5101 of the Tax 
and Trade Relief Extension Act of 1998) (contained in division J of 
Public Law 105-277)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(x)(I) In the case of an applicable agency (as defined in 
subclause (II)), the per beneficiary limitation for such agency shall 
be established under clause (vi)(I) instead of under clause (v).
    ``(II) In this clause, the term `applicable agency' means an agency 
that--
            ``(aa) began participation in the medicare program under 
        this title between January 1, 1978, and January 1, 1988;
            ``(bb) had a 12-month cost reporting period ending in 
        fiscal year 1994; and
            ``(cc) is located in Penobscot County, Maine.''.
    (b) Tax and Trade Relief Extension Act Amendment.--Section 
1861(v)(1)(L)(x)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395x(v)(1)(L)(x)(I)) (as added by subsection (a)) is amended by 
inserting ``(and clause (viii)(II) for cost reporting periods beginning 
during or after fiscal year 1999)'' after ``clause (vi)(I)''.
    (c) Effective Dates.--
            (1) BBA amendment.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
        shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the 
        Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
            (2) Tax and trade relief extension act amendment.--The 
        amendment made by subsection (b) shall take effect as if 
        included in the enactment of the Tax and Trade Relief Extension 
        Act of 1998) (contained in division J of Public Law 105-277).
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 23, 2009

s0615 

# Order

June 23, 2009

136017

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136017 COA: 269250 Washtenaw CC: 05-001221-FH MICHAEL WILLIAM MUNGO, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of May 27, 2008, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Arizona v Gant (Docket No. 07-542). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on April 21, 2009, Arizona v Gant , 556 US ___; 129 S Ct 1710; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2 009), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of gr anting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMAND this case to that court for reco nsideration in light of the
decision in Arizona v Gant

.

We further note that a similar issue is presented in People v Hunter, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeal s, issued on April 3, 2008 (Docket No. 272873), which we have peremp torily vacated and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Gant by order dated June 23, 2 009 (Docket No. 136546).

We do not retain jurisdiction.
**Exhibit 99.21**

 

**CONSENT OF WILLIAM L. ROSE**

 

I hereby consent to the use of my name and the name of my company in connection with the following, which are being reference in the annual report on Form 40-F of Minera Andes Inc. (the “**Company**”) being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission:

 

1.               The technical report titled “Canadian National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report Updated Preliminary Assessment Los Azules Project”, with an effective date of December 1, 2010 (the “**Los Azules Report**”);

 

2.               The current mineral resource estimates of the Los Azules project; and

 

3.               The annual information form of the Company dated March 28th, 2011, which includes reference to my name and company name in connection with information relating to the Los Azules Project and the Los Azules Report.

 
| Date: March 30th, 2011 |                                             |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
|                        |                                             |
|                        | “Signed” William L.   Rose             |
|                        | Name:William L. Rose, PE                         |
|                        | Title: President and   Principal Mining Engineer |
|                        | Company: WLR   Consulting, Inc.             |

 

----
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
| I.     | Section 7.13 - Consolidated Leverage Ratio. |   |   |   |
|   | A. Consolidated EBITDA for four consecutive fiscal quarters ending on above date (“Subject Period”): |   |   |   |
|   | 1. Consolidated Net Income for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 2. Consolidated Interest Charges for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 3. Provision for income taxes for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 4. Depreciation expenses for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 5. Amortization expenses for intangibles for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 6. Non-cash expenses reducing Consolidated Net Income for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 7. Special cash charges incurred in connection with the Specified Acquisition during Subject Period (not to exceed, in the aggregate for all periods, $175,000,000): |   | $ |   |
|   | 8. For the Statement Dates as of January 2, 2016, April 2, 2016, July 2, 2016 and October 1, 2016, consolidated EBITDA of Thoratec Corporation for such Subject Period1: |   | $ |   |
|   | 9. Non-cash items increasing Consolidated Net Income for Subject Period: |   | $ |   |
|   | 10. Consolidated EBITDA (Lines I.A.1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 - 9): |   | $ |   |
|   | B. Consolidated Funded Indebtedness at Statement Date |   | $ |   |
|   | C. Consolidated Leverage Ratio (Line I.B. ÷ Line I.A): |   |   | ____ to 1.00 |
|   | Maximum permitted: |   |   | ____ to 1.002 |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |
| 1      |  | Add-backs for consolidated EBITDA of Thoratec Corporation are as follows: (i) for the period of four consecutive fiscal quarters (the “Measurement Period”) ended January 2, 2016, $95,006,000; for the Measurement Period ended April 2, 2016, $62,978,000; (iii) for the Measurement Period ended July 2, 2016, $30,288,000; and (iv) for the Measurement Period ended October 1, 2016, $(306,000). |
|   |   |
| 2      |  | Maximum permitted Consolidated Leverage Ratio (on or after the Closing Date) of (i) 4.25 to 1.00 from the Closing Date until and including the fiscal quarter of the Borrower ending December 31, 2015; (ii) 4.00 to 1.00 for the next four consecutive fiscal quarters of the Borrower; and (iii) 3.50 to 1.00 during any period of four fiscal quarters of the Borrower thereafter. |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-41243

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GERONIMO HERNANDEZ-HERRERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-03-CR-431-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Geronimo Hernandez-Herrera appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United

States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Hernandez-Herrera contends that the “felony” and “aggravated

felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are

unconstitutional. He therefore argues that his conviction must

be reduced to one under the lesser included offense found in 8

U.S.C. § 1362(a), his judgment must be reformed to reflect a
No. 03-41243

-2-

conviction only under that provision, and his sentence must be

vacated and the case remanded for resentencing to no more than

two years’ imprisonment and one year of supervised release. 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Hernandez-Herrera acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed

by Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
Exhibit 10.12
                                                                   -------------



                                                            Royal Bank of Canada
                                                      Information Technology-GTA
                                          260 East Beaver Creek Road - 2nd Floor
                                                      Richmond Hill, ON, L4B 3M3
                                                              Tel.: 416-955-2139
                                                               Fax: 416-955-2562


RBC



                               [GRAPHIC OMITED]


November 27, 2006

Private and Confidential


SENTRY  TECHNOLOGY  CANADA  INC.
37  Voyager  Court  North
Toronto,  ON
M9W  4Y2

We  refer  to  the agreement dated May 15, 2006 between SENTRY TECHNOLOGY CANADA
INC.,  as the Borrower, and Royal Bank of Canada, as the Bank, (the "Agreement")
and in particular to the Credit Facility and Financial Covenants sections of the
Agreement.

All  capitalized  terms  not  otherwise  defined  herein  shall have the meaning
ascribed  to  them  in  the  Agreement.

The  Agreement  is  amended  as  follows:

1.   Under the  Credit  Facilities  section,  Facility  #  1,  the first line is
     amended  by  deleting  the  "term facility" and by substituting the "demand
     facility".

2.   Under the  Credit  Facilities  section,  Facility  #  1(a)  is  amended and
     restated  as  follows:

     1(a) Interest  rate  (per  annum):     RBP  +  2.75%

3.     Delete  in  its  entirety  the  section  entitled  Financial  Covenants.

CONDITIONS  PRECEDENT
The  effectiveness  of  this  amendment  is  conditional  upon receipt of a duly
executed  copy  of  this  amending  agreement.


COUNTERPART  EXECUTION

This  amending  agreement  may  be executed in any number of counterparts and by
different parties in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall
be  deemed  to be an original and all of which taken together constitute one and
the  same  instrument.

All other terms and conditions outlined in the Agreement remain unchanged and in
full  force  and  effect.

This  amending  agreement  is  open for acceptance until December 4, 2006, after
which  date  it  will  be null and void, unless extended in writing by the Bank.


<PAGE>


ROYAL  BANK  OF  CANADA

Per:  /S/  Colin  Cochrane
      --------------------
Name:  Colin  Cochrane
Title:  Manager,  Special  Asset  Management
/js


Agreed  to  and  accepted  this  28  day  of  November,  2006.
                                ----         ---------


SENTRY  TECHNOLOGY  CANADA  INC.


Per:  /S/  Peter  L.  Murdoch
    -------------------------
Name:  Peter  L.  Murdoch
Title:  President

Per:  /S/  Peter  J.  Mundy
      ---------------------
Name:  Peter  J.  Mundy
Title:  VP  -  CFO

I/We  have  the  authority  to  bind  the  Borrower
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 150 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 150

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
    For the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert Miftakhov.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Marina Khalina 
and her son, Albert Miftakhov, shall be held and considered to have 
been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence as 
of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of the required 
visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Marina Khalina and her 
son, Albert Miftakhov, as provided in this Act, the Secretary of State 
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by the appropriate number 
during the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas 
available to natives of the country of the aliens' birth under section 
203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

            Passed the Senate September 28 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 150

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

    For the relief of Marina Khalina and her son, Albert Miftakhov.
```
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 Concord EFS, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bond R. Isaacson, Co-Chief Executive 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:



(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.



By:

/s/    BOND R. ISAACSONBond R. Isaacson Co-Chief Executive Officer




Dated:    August 11, 2003



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concord EFS, Inc. and will be retained by Concord EFS, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

CRAIG R. ZOBEL
, Appellant,

v.

ANN M. ZOBEL
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 16

- 3854

[ February 1, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; John L. Phillips , Judge; L.T. Case No.

2005DR004553XXXXNB

.

Ralph T. White of Law Office of R.T. White West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Kathryn M

. Beamer of Kathryn M. Beamer, P.A., North Palm Beach, and Deanna V. Shuler of Deanna V. Shuler, P.A., Palm Beach Garde ns, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER
, C.J., L EVINE and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.