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

I,
Attiazaz "Bob" Din, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|Dated: December 23, 2003 |  |                                                                                                     
|------------------------ |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  |                                                                                                     
|                         |  | /s/ATTIAZAZ "BOB" DINAttiazaz "Bob" Din Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

---

QuickLinks
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: West Loop Hospitality, LLC, and Jetall Companies, Inc. v. 

Houston Galleria Lodging Associates, LLC, Raymond 

Management Company, Inc., the Estate of C.J. Raymond, and 

Barry Perkel

Appellate case number: 01-19-00885-CV

Trial court case number: 2013-63613

Trial court: 55th District Court of Harris County

Lloyd Kelley has filed an unopposed motion for leave to withdraw as counsel for 

appellants/cross-appellees, West Loop Hospitality, LLC and Jetall Companies, Inc.

However, the motion does not comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.5, which 

identifies certain information that any motion to withdraw “must contain,” including the 

party’s name and last known address and telephone number. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(a)(2). 

The motion does not contain the appellants’ last known telephone number. See Id. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice to refiling same.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes______

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ____April 23, 2020_____
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 12, 2018.

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

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, March 12, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18I0132. U-HAUL CO. OF ARIZONA et al. v. MARGARET RUTH RUTLAND, AS 

SURVIVING SPOUSE et al. .

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

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17CV1641
**Exhibit
      10.9**





**FPIC
      Insurance Group, Inc.**





**Executive
      Incentive**


**Compensation
      Plan**





**Summary
      of 2007 Implementation Guide**






**Plan
      Description**


Under
      this plan, the Compensation Committee of the holding company board will
      establish performance measures and goal weightings for each year based on
      synergies and desired focus. The performance measures will be both quantitative
      and qualitative in nature.





**Performance
      Components**


Corporate
      financial measures will be based on corporate relevant metrics and operating
      subsidiary (SBU) measures will be based on SBU relevant metrics. Certain senior
      executives of each SBU, including its CEO, will have a portion of their
      incentive compensation tied to corporate performance given the high degree
      of
      synergy with corporate objectives.





The
      following performance component weights will apply to the Company’s executive
      officers for 2007:




Tier
            Corporate
            SBU
            IndividualHolding
                Co. - CEO/CFO
            100%
            -
            -SBU - CEO
            45%
            35%
            20%





**Performance
      Targets**


Specific
      targets will be established on an annual basis for each performance component
      and will be evaluated on a sliding scale ranging from 50% of the bonus
      opportunity to 150% of the bonus opportunity. Any measure falling below the
      50%
      level will reduce the related bonus opportunity to 0%.





**Individual
      Target Bonuses**


Target
      bonuses for the following executive officers will be as follows (as a percentage
      of 2007 base salary):




Tier
              Target
                  Bonus
                (as
                  % of base salary)Holding Co. - CEO
              100%Holding Co. - CFO
              50%SBU - CEO
              50%
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50398 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus GERALD GUERRA, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-93-CV-1033
- - - - - - - - - - December 20, 1995 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion for post-conviction relief. He argues that the Government breached the plea agreement, that the use of a prior conviction in sentencing violated the double jeopardy clause, and that counsel was ineffective. Appellant has abandoned his claims that the Government failed to file an information for enhancement and that counsel was ineffective forNo. 95-50398 -2- not objecting to the alleged failure. See Hobbs v. Blackburn , 752 F.2d 1079, 1083 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 474 U.S. 838 (1985). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Guerra , No. SA-93-CA-1033 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 1995). AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         105,549
<SECURITIES>                                   276,558
<RECEIVABLES>                                  189,635
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    102,239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               690,891
<PP&E>                                       3,028,841
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,457,250
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,737,688
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          202,943
<BONDS>                                        757,742
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     25,465
<COMMON>                                        44,887
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,072,696
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,737,688
<SALES>                                      1,083,480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,083,480
<CGS>                                          829,723
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  955,888
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (15,775)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,626
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,914
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,399
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,567
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        
<PAGE>


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,944
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,620
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     57,997
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          13,594
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            13,729
<LOANS>                                        149,524
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,070
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 231,879
<DEPOSITS>                                     198,830
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,049
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            13
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 231,879
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,922
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,165
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    46
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 4,133
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,558
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,700
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            1,433
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       11
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  47
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,099
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    613
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         613
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    $0.24
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.67
<LOANS-NON>                                        775
<LOANS-PAST>                                       675
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    90
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     88
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,058
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         1
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,070
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               435
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            635
        

</TABLE>
BLD

- 089 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 1 1

- 1026

___________

IN RE: OSSIE R. TRADER

, Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from th e

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Crim. No. 94

- cr

- 00534

- 002 )

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 13, 2011

Before: SLOVITER, JORDAN and GR EENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : January 20, 2011 )

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Ossie Trader has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He seeks an order

directing the District Court to remove the docket entry terminating his motion to dismiss

the indictment based on the Speedy Trial Act

. We have repeatedly explained to Trader

that he waived his speedy trial claim by pleading guilty

. See In re: Trader , C.A. No. 09

-

1522. If Tra der continues to file frivolous pleadings or appeals , he will face sanctions.

See In re Oliver , 682 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1982)

.2

For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for mandamus.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1147 

KA 10-01798 

PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

EVERETT L. DOWNING, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (THOMAS H. BRANDT OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Matthew J.

Murphy, III, J.), rendered July 14, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). 

Entered: November 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28004]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM10-13-000]


Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets; Notice 
Establishing Date for Comments

May 12, 2010.
    On May 11, 2010, Commission staff convened a technical conference 
related to the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Credit 
Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets.\1\ Specifically, the 
technical conference addressed the proposal in the Credit Reforms NOPR 
regarding whether Independent System Operators/Regional Transmission 
Operators should adopt tariff revisions to clarify their status as a 
counterparty to transactions in their markets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Credit Reforms in Organized Wholesale Electric Markets, 130 
FERC ] 61,055 (2010) (Credit Reforms NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entities wishing to submit further, written comments regarding the 
counterparty proposal discussed at the technical conference should 
submit their comments in this docket on or before June 8, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11908 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Lloyd Douglas Enterprises LLC dba River City Care Center & Steve



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 18, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00221

- CV

Comfort ROBERTS

, Appellant

v.

LLOYD DOUGLAS ENTERPRISES LLC dba River City Care Center & Steve Robinson, Appellee

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 12260 Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appell ee s have filed a Motion for Sanctions raising several a lleg ations about appellant’s conduct in this appeal . Appellant , Mr. Comfort Roberts who is representing himself pro se, responded denying the allegations.

Appellees’ Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. However

, Mr. Roberts is cautioned that although he is acting pro se in this appeal, this court expects him to follow the Texas Rules of Appellat e Procedure , including

, but not limited to, Rule 9 (“Documents Generally”), Rule 10 (“Motions in Appellate Courts”) , and Rule 38 (“Requisites of Briefs”). Failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in a pleading being stri c ken or th is appeal being dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9, 42.3(c)

. Mr. Roberts is reminded that his appellate brief is due no later than August 28, 2014

.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, J ustice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Cl erk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12000]



[[Page 28095]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 7017]


Culturally Significant Object Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``E Ku Ana Ka Paia: Unification, Responsibility and the 
Ku Images''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the object to be 
included in the exhibition ``E Ku Ana Ka Paia: Unification, 
Responsibility and the Ku Images,'' imported from abroad for temporary 
exhibition within the United States, is of cultural significance. The 
object is imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner 
or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the 
exhibit object at the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, from on or about 
June 5, 2010, until on or about October 4, 2010, and at possible 
additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the 
national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these 
Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit object, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-
632-6467). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, SA-5, L/PD, 
Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: May 12, 2010.
Maura M. Pally,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, 
Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-12000 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
October 29, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GEORGE NEAL WILLIAMS, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00700-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The 

record reveals error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment REVERSED 

and RENDERS judgment of acquittal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# States in the Senate | New Mexico

**

----

**Introduction****Senators****Timeline**

**Martin Heinrich (D)***Hometown: Albuquerque*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

**Ben Ray Luján (D)***Hometown: Nambe*

----

                Contact            

----

                Committee Assignments                Biographical Directory Listing

New Mexico became the 47th state in the Union on January 6, 1912, 62 years after it became a territory. The state’s first two senators, Albert B. Fall and Thomas Catron, took office on March 27, 1912. New Mexico’s longest-serving senators include Dennis Chavez (1935–1962), Pete Domenici (1973–2009), and Jeff Bingaman (1983–2013). Octaviano Larrazolo became the first Hispanic American senator in 1929, and Dennis Chavez became the first American-born Hispanic senator in 1935.

Return to map

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Can't Find Your Senator? 

Can't find your senator's name? Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, a former senator, or a senator in your State Legislature.
<PAGE>

                                                                 Exhibit 21.1 to
                                                              Form 10-K for 2001


                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant
                            (as of February 28, 2002)


SUBSIDIARY NAME                                        STATE OF INCORPORATION
---------------                                        ----------------------

Broadwing Communications Services Inc.                 Delaware

Broadwing IT Consulting Inc.                           Ohio

Broadwing Local Services Inc.                          Delaware

Broadwing Communications Services of VA, Inc.          Virginia

Broadwing Telecommunications Inc.                      Delaware

IXC Business Services LLC                              Delaware

IXC Internet Services Inc.                             Delaware

Mutual Signal Holding Corporation                      Delaware

Mutual Signal Corporation                              New York

Mutual Signal Corporation of Michigan                  New York

MSM Assoc. Limited Partnership                         Delaware
*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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-40709

Summary Calendar

 

CARMEN DUGAN, Individually and as next 

friend of Jane B., a minor,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HARRISON COUNTY, TEXAS; PATRICK A. JOHNSON,

Defendants-Appellants.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:01-CV-187

 

January 3, 2003

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Patrick Johnson appeals the district court’s summary judgment

ruling denying him qualified and official immunity from the

plaintiff’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. The denial of

a motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity is

immediately appealable only when based on an issue of law.
2

Rodriguez v. Neeley, 169 F.3d 220, 222 (5th Cir. 1999). Orders

determining “only a question of ‘evidence sufficiency,’ i.e., which

facts a party may, or may not, be able to prove at trial,” are not

based on an issue of law and are not immediately appealable.

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304, 313 (1995).

Insofar as Johnson challenges the district court’s legal

determination that federal law clearly established that Jane B.’s

custodial status entitled her the protections of the Fourteenth and

Eighth Amendments during her stay in the S.T.A.R. boot camp, he

does so for the first time on appeal. Because refusing to address

Johnson’s qualified immunity argument on interlocutory appeal will

not result in grave injustice, we decline to address that argument

at this time. See Kelly v. Foti, 77 F.3d 819, 822 (5th Cir. 1996).

Johnson’s remaining appellate arguments challenge the district

court’s determination that Jane B. adduced sufficient evidence to

raise a genuine issue of material fact suggesting that Johnson’s

conduct was objectively unreasonable. Johnson’s remaining

arguments, therefore, do not challenge an appealable final order,

and we accordingly lack jurisdiction to review them. See Reyes v.

City of Richmond, 287 F.3d 346, 351 (5th Cir. 2002); Cantu v.

Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996) (orders premised on the

denial of qualified immunity under Texas law are appealable in

federal court to the same extent as district court orders premised

on the denial of federal law immunity).
3

APPEAL DISMISSED.