alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit      32.2**

CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 

18      U.S.C. §1350, 

AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

        In      connection with this      Interim Report on Form 10-Q of Technology Research Corporation      (the“Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the      undersigned Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer 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:  August 15,              2005 | /s/ Scott              J. Loucks                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                 | Scott J.              Loucks                                                    |
|                                                                                                                                                 | Vice              President of Finance and Chief Financial              Officer |
|                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                 |
|                                                                                                                                                 |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906      has been provided to Technology Research Corporation and will be retained      by Technology Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities      and      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
Amendment to The PBSJ Corporation 2008 Employee Payroll Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
 AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 THE AMENDED AND RESTATED 
 THE PBSJ CORPORATION 2008 EMPLOYEE 
 PAYROLL STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 This
Amendment to The Amended and Restated The PBSJ Corporation 2008 Employee Payroll Stock Purchase Plan (the “Plan”) is made on this      day of May, 2009, by The PBSJ Corporation, a Florida corporation (the
“Company”). 
 RECITALS 
 WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Plan to provide an opportunity to its eligible employees to purchase Company stock through payroll deductions; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 18 of the Plan authorizes the Board of Directors of the Company to amend the Plan; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the company has authorized and approved the amendments to the Plan contained herein; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective as of May     , 2009: 
 1. Paragraph (m) of Section 2 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: 
 “(m) “Fair Market Value” means with respect to a Share, the fair market value of a Share as determined by the most
recently completed independent appraisal of the Shares, subject to applicable law and in accordance with Company’s Bylaws, as amended from time to time.” 
 2. All other terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain the same. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Company has caused this Amendment to be duly executed effective as of the day and year first above written. 








			
	COMPANY:
	
	THE PBSJ CORPORATION, a Florida corporation
		
	By:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00263-CV

In the Interest of M.H., II, a child §

§

§

§

§

From County Court at Law No. 1

of Parker County (CIV-14-0611)

Februrary 5, 2016

Opinion by Justice Gardner

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion

by Justice Gabriel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case as to Appellant

Mother C.J.H. and holds that there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is 

ordered that the judgment of the trial court is reversed as to termination of the 

parent-child relationship between Appellant Mother C.J.H. and the child, M.W.H., 

II, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. The trial court must commence a new trial no later than 180 

days after the date this court issues the mandate in this appeal. 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case as to Appellant

Father M.W.H. 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 as to Appellant Father 

M.W.H.
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner_________________

 Justice Anne Gardner
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               SEP-30-1995             DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995             DEC-31-1994
<CASH>                               553661                 0                                
<SECURITIES>                              0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0                 0
<INVENTORY>                               0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0                 0
<PP&E>                              9370102                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                      4933914                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      5436239                 0                
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     0                 0
<BONDS>                                   0                 0
<COMMON>                                  0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0                 0
<PREFERRED>                               0                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                0                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        5436239                 0
<SALES>                             1224172                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1882111                 0
<CGS>                                     0                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0                 0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      425226                 0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  425226                 0   
<DISCONTINUED>                            0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0                 0
<CHANGES>                                 0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                         425226                 0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             0                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                             0                 0
        

</TABLE>
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 Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 24972)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on March 22, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on High-Efficiency Dilute Gasoline Engine II, (“HEDGE II”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Deere & Company, Waterloo, IA, and Chery Automobile Co., LTD. Anhui, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, have been added as partis to this venture.                

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HEDGE II intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On February 19, 2009, HEDGE II filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on April 2, 2009 (74 FR 15003).                

                    The last notification was filed with the department on February 18, 2010. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 24, 2010 (75 FR 14192)                

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-10447 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
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 Energy

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of Request for Information (RFI).

# SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is seeking information from stakeholders on rare earth elements and other materials used in energy technologies, particularly clean energy components and applications, and energy efficiency technologies.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information or to obtain a copy of this Request for Information (RFI), please contact DOE at                         *materialstrategy@hq.doe.gov*                         or call 202–586–5800. The RFI is also available on DOE's Web site at                         *http://www.energy.gov.*

# DATES:

Responses to the RFI are due no later than 5 p.m. (EDT) on June 7, 2010.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

DOE recently announced its intent to develop a strategic plan for addressing the role of rare earth elements and other materials in energy technologies and processes. The responses to the RFI will help DOE develop a more accurate picture of current and future supply and demand for these materials; identify the potential for supply disruptions; and determine the best policies to promote diverse, sustainable and economical supplies in the future.

Dated: May 5, 2010.

David Sandalow,

Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 2010–10980 Filed 5–7–10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

March 4 , 2016 

# Order

Clerk March 4 , 2016

15 3140 & (17)(18)

D’ALESSANDRO CONTRACTING

GROUP, LLC, and SAFECO INSURANCE

COMPANY OF AMERICA

, Plaintiff s

- Appell ants

, SC: 15 3140

v COA: 328366

Genesee CC: 1 0

- 095065

- C K

JEFFREY WRIGHT, GENESEE COUNTY DRAIN

COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF WATER &

WASTE SERVICES

, Defendant

- Appell ee

.

___________________________________________ /

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation sign ed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this application for leave to appeal and the accompanying

motions is considered, and the application and motions are DISMISSED with prejudice

and without costs.
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2093

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to ensure

that full obligation authority is provided for the Indian reservation roads

program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 24, 2000

Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BAUCUS, and Mr. DASCHLE)

introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the

Committee on Environment and Public Works

A BILL

To amend the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to ensure that full obligation authority is provided

for the Indian reservation roads program.

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

3 SECTION 1. FULL OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FOR INDIAN

4 RESERVATION ROADS PROGRAM.

5 Section 1102(c)(1) of the Transportation Equity Act

6 for the 21st Century (23 U.S.C. 104 note; 112 Stat. 116)

7 is amended—

8 (1) by striking ‘‘Code, and’’ and inserting

9 ‘‘Code,’’; and
2

•S 2093 IS

1 (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end

2 the following: ‘‘, and, for each of fiscal years 2001

3 through 2003, amounts authorized for Indian res4 ervation roads under section 204 of title 23, United

5 States Code’’.

Æ
#### LANE, Respondent, *v.*HUMPHREYS, Appellant.

(No. 1,984.)

(Submitted January 4, 1904.

Decided February 11, 1904.)

For syllabus see *Lane*y. *BaMey, ante,*page 548.

*Appeal from. District Court, Rosebud County; C. H. Loud, Judge.*

ElectioN contest by Clarence E. Lane against N. J. Humph-reys. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

*Mr. Sydney Banner, Mr. F. J. Dierhs,*and *Mr. F. V. H. Collins,*for Appellant.

*Mr. T. J. Porter,*and *Mr. J. C. Lyndes,*for Eespondent.

Per Curiam.

By stipulation of counsel this case presents for decision questions identical with those in *Lane*v. *Bailey {ante,*page 548) decided this day. ■ On the authority of that case, therefore/the judgment is affirmed.'

*Affirmed.*
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 Community Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Donald R. Hughes, Jr., Treasurer, Clerk and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

     (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 represents,
          in all material respects, the financial condition and results
          of operations of the Company.





/s/ Donald R. Hughes, Jr.
-------------------------
Donald R. Hughes, Jr.
Treasurer, Clerk and Chief Financial Officer


Date: November 8, 2002
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 02-07-164-CV 

RELIANT AMERICAN GROUP, INC., ET AL.			      APPELLANTS

V.

LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY		                   APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 352ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

AND

NO. 02-07-252-CV

IN RE RELIANT AMERICAN 

GROUP, INC., JOSEPH D. 

MACCHIA, NORMAN ALBERIGO, 

HERBERT D. AGEE, BRIGITTE 

DOYLE AND MARK E. PETTICREW		

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

	We have considered appellants/relators’ “Motion To Dismiss Interlocutory Appeal And Petition For Writ Of Mandamus.”  It is the court’s opinion that the 

motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss this consolidated interlocutory appeal and original proceeding.  See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f), 52.8(d).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellants/relators’, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  HOLMAN, GARDNER, and MCCOY, JJ.  

DELIVERED:  November 8, 2007
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 15, 2015
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 14
- 00239
- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K .M.M
. AND M.W.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 247th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013
- 23266

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
This is an attempted appeal of an interlocutory order in a bill

‐ of

‐ review proceeding. The trial court signed an order purporting to vacate the order in a child

- support

- enforcement proceeding nearly two years earlier, but did not then go on to address the merits of the claim as required in a bill

- of

- review proceeding. Jordan v. Jordan , 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (“ A bill of review which se ts aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable. ”); Mills v. Corvettes of Hous

. , Inc. , 44 S.W.3d 197, 199 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (same).2

Recognizing that this is a non

‐ appealable interlocutory order, the appellee asked that this court consider “both parties’ briefing of these issues as consent and agreement for the Court to address this matter

. ” We therefore notified the parties

o n December 16, 2014 of our intent to dis miss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless the appellant filed an amended notice of appeal in compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.2(c)

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 28.2(c) (setting forth the required contents of a notice of appeal in an agre ed interlocutory appeal)

. The

a ppellant did not file an amended notice of appeal , and his responsive brief does not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

. Accordingly, because there is no final judgment or appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 28.2(d); 42

. 3 (a); 43.2(f).

/s/ Tracy Christopher Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Donovan, and Wise.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We hereby consent to theincorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8(Nos.: 333-108817, 333-92340, 333-84710, 333-44548, 333-60150 and 333-120564)and the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos.: 333-111791, 333-107723,333-106944, and 333-111150) of UTStarcom, Inc. of our report dated April 14,2005, relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedules,management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Jose, CaliforniaApril 15, 2005

----
#### Continental Insurance Company v. Hargrove.

(Decided April 28th, 1911.)

Appeal from Graves Circuit Court.

Appeal — Reversal—Second Trial — Verdict for Plaintiff — New Trial. —When on appeal to this court a judgment is reversed because the verdict is palpably against the evidence, this is the law of the ease; and if on another trial there is again a verdict for th'e plaintiff on the same evidence’, a new trial will he granted.

RALPH N. STANFIELD for appellant.

W. J. WEBB for appellee.

*401Opinion op the Cotjet by

Chiep Justice Hobson

Reversing.

The facts of this case are fully stated in the opinion delivered on the former appeal. (See Continental Ins. Co. v. Hargrove, 131 Ky., 837.) On that appeal it was held that the verdict for the plaintiff was palpably against the evidence and the judgment for this reason was reversed. On the return of the case to the circuit court, it was tried again on the same evidence, and a second verdict having been returned in favor of the plaintiff, the court entered judgment upon it. The insurance company appeals.

The facts on the second trial are the same as on the first trial. There was no substantial change in the testimony, and no material new testimony was introduced. The former opinion is the law of the case. A's we then held that the verdict was palpably against the evidence, it is the law of the case that a verdict for the plaintiff on the same evidence is palpably against the evidence. It is provided in section 341 of the Civil Code that not more than two new trials shall be granted to a party upon the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. This necessarily means that two new trials- may be granted if the verdict is not sustained by the evidence, and we can not extend the statute.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Judge Nunn dissents.