alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Cross Atlantic Commodities,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months end September
30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael Enemaerke, 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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Michael Enemaerke
-----------------------------
Michael Enemaerke
Chief Executive Officer

November 18, 2006


        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 Cross Atlantic Commodities,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine months ended September
30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kim Beck-Nielsen, Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:
            (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 result of
operations of the Company.

/s/ Kim Beck Nielsen
-----------------------------
Kim Beck Nielsen
Chief Financial Officer

November 18, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5516 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5516

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the employment and 
 reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services to other law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 14, 2023

  Mr. Takano introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the employment and 
 reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services to other law.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT AND 
              REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

    (a) Clarification Regarding Definition of Rights and Benefits.--
Section 4303(2) of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``--'' after ```rights and benefits''';
            (2) by redesignating the text beginning with ``means'' and 
        ending with ``employment.'' as a subparagraph (A);
            (3) in such subparagraph (A), as so redesignated, by 
        striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(B) includes any procedural protections or provisions set 
        forth in this chapter.''.
    (b) Clarification Regarding Relation to Other Law and Plans for 
Agreements.--Section 4302 of such title is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(c)(1) Pursuant to this section and the procedural rights 
afforded by subchapter III of this chapter, any agreement to arbitrate 
a claim under this chapter is unenforceable, unless all parties consent 
to arbitration after a complaint on the specific claim has been filed 
in court or with the Merit Systems Protection Board and all parties 
knowingly and voluntarily consent to have that particular claim 
subjected to arbitration.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, consent shall not be 
considered voluntary when a person is required to agree to arbitrate an 
action, complaint, or claim alleging a violation of this chapter as a 
condition of future or continued employment, advancement in employment, 
or receipt of any right or benefit of employment.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21451]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-225-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 6, 1996.
    Take notice that on May 1, 1996, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (Natural) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Sixth Revised Sheet No. 22, to be effective 
June 1, 1996.
    Natural states that the filing is submitted pursuant to Section 21 
of the General Terms and Conditions of Natural's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth 
Revised Volume No. 1 (Section 21), as the sixth semiannual limited rate 
filing under Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act and the Rules and 
Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) 
promulgated thereunder. The rate adjustments filed for are designed to 
recover Account No. 858 stranded costs incurred by Natural under 
contracts for transportation capacity on other pipelines. Costs for any 
Account No. 858 contracts specifically excluded under Section 21 are 
not reflected in this filing.
    Natural requested specific waivers of Section 21 and the 
Commission's Regulations, including the requirements of Section 154.63, 
to the extent necessary to permit the tariff sheet to become effective 
June 1, 1996.
    Natural states that copies of the filing are being mailed to 
Natural's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the public reference room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11690 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-05-269-CV

MIKEY'S HOUSES LLC AND						     APPELLANTS

HELEN L. MARTIN AND 

JOYCE A. POWELL	

	V.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION 					APPELLEES

D/B/A BANK OF AMERICA N.A., 

REPUBLIC TITLE OF TEXAS, INC. 

AND CARMALETA KEENAN A/K/A 

CARMALETA WELLS KEENAN	

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

	FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Mikey’s Houses, LLC, Helen L. Martin, and Joyce A. Powell are attempting to appeal the trial court’s interlocutory order granting Appellee Bank of America’s motion to enforce a contractual waiver of jury trial.  We dismiss the appeal.

	The permissive appeal statute provides as follows: 

		A district court may issue a written order for interlocutory appeal in a civil action not otherwise appealable under this section if:

		(1) the parties agree that the order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion;

		(2) an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation; and

		(3) the parties agree to the order.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(d) (Vernon Supp. 2004-05) (emphasis added).  

	Neither Appellants’ motion for permission to file an interlocutory appeal, their notice of appeal, nor the trial court’s order granting permission to file the interlocutory appeal complies with this statute.  There is no allegation or evidence in the trial court’s order or in the record before us that Bank of America has agreed to the order granting the interlocutory appeal.  Further, there is no allegation or evidence that Bank of America agrees that the order being appealed involves a controlling question of law about which there is a substantial difference of opinion.  Appellants’ motion for permission to appeal merely states:

	Plaintiffs have sought the agreement of Defendant Bank of America, and will provide the same to the Court upon receipt, or will advise the Court that no agreement can be reached, in which case other legal avenues will be utilized.  Plaintiffs hope to hear from Defendants within the next five days.

	Likewise, the trial court’s order simply recites:  ”[T]he Court being fully advised in the premises and having heard statements of counsel, does hereby grant the Plaintiffs Permission to File Interlocutory Appeal of Denial of Jury Trial.”

	Because Appellants’ documents and the trial court’s order, on their face, show a failure to comply with the statute, we dismiss the appeal.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL A:	MCCOY, LIVINGSTON, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 25, 2005
Exhibit 10.11





Form of Loan Agreement





Party A: Weihai Hengchang Fuel Group Co., Ltd.


Party B: Shandong Qingyuan Beer Co., Ltd.





Whereas Party B’s lack of working capital has impact on its performance of the Contract, Party A and Party B have reached the following agreement (“Agreement”), through consultations, to ensureParty B’s normal business operation.





Article 1.     Party A agrees to lend part of its working capital to Party B. Party B agrees to use the loan to purchase raw materials, and Party B shall not use the loan to purchase fixed assets or make equity investments.





Article 2.   The term of the loan is one year. If Party B asks for an extension, then the term of the loan could be extended through consultations by both parties. The rights and obligations of both parties shall be extended accordingly, and neither party needs to enter into a new agreement. If Party B no longer needs the loan, Party B shall repay the loan amount in full, and both parties shall enter into a termination agreement.





Article 3.     Interest rate of the loan: the debt under the Agreement bears no interest.





Article 4.     Loan Repayment: Party B shall repay the loan on time as needed by Party A in accordance with Party A’s financing process and production needs.





Article 5.     The Agreement is prepared in duplicate, one copy for Party A and one copy for Party B, and it shall take effect upon execution of both parties.





Party A:
Party B:Weihai Hengchang Fuel Group Co.,Ltd.
Shandong Qingyuan Beer Co.,LtdLegal representatives:
Legal representatives:Date: __/__/____
Date: __/__/____
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

December 11, 2009

Mr. Robert B. Gilbreath

Hawkins, Parnell & Thackston, LLP

Highland Park Place

4514 Cole Avenue, Suite 500

Dallas, TX 75205

Mr. Leslie Dean Pickett

Galloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith

1301 McKinney, Suite 1400

Houston, TX 77010

RE:Case Number:  06-1018

Court of Appeals Number:  14-05-00486-CV

Trial Court Number:  2003-68937

Style:D.R. HORTON-TEXAS, LTD.

v.

MARKEL INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion and enclosed judgment in the above-referenced cause.  You may obtain a copy of the opinion at: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/recent.asp.  If you would like the opinion by email, please contact Claudia Jenks at claudia.jenks@courts.state.tx.us or call (512)463-1312 ext. 41367.  (Justice Guzman not sitting)

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-1018Page 1**
#### John E. Green et al., Appellants, v Tinto Funding Corp. et al., Respondents.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated March 23,1989, which, upon an order of the same court, dated February 28, 1989, granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, is in favor of the defendants and against them.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the instant action, alleging fraud and breach of contract by the purchasers at the foreclosure sale of the plaintiffs’ home, was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel inasmuch as the gravamen of this action is identical to that of the plaintiffs’ prior action seeking to vacate the sale on the ground, *inter alia,*of collusion. Having had that issue decided against them, the plaintiffs may not relitigate it in a subsequent action *(see, Kaufman v Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449; *O’Brien v City of Syracuse,*54 NY2d 353; *Gilberg v Barbieri,*53 NY2d 285). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,721

EX PARTE ALFRED GENE DAVIS, SR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 6034 IN THE 39TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HASKELL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Court of

Appeals affirmed his conviction. Davis v. State, No. 11-05-00115-CR (Tex. App.–Eastland Dec. 14,

2006, pet ref’d). 

Applicant contends that his due process rights were violated. The trial court and the State

recommended that we grant Applicant relief. Relief is granted. The judgment of conviction in cause
2

number 6034 from the 39th District Court of Haskell County is set aside. Applicant is remanded to

the custody of the Sheriff of Haskell County to answer the charges set out in the indictment.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal

Justice–Correctional Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: February 8, 2012

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.4

STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT  TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Stolt Offshore S.A. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stuart Jackson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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: June 2, 2003 |  |                                       
|                   |  | /s/STUART JACKSON                     
|                   |  | Stuart Jackson
Chief Financial Officer

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Stolt Offshore S.A. and will be retained by Stolt Offshore S.A. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5755 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5755

   To repeal the Local Rent Supplement Program Eligibility Temporary 
                         Amendment Act of 2023.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 2023

 Mr. Grothman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the Local Rent Supplement Program Eligibility Temporary 
                         Amendment Act of 2023.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LOCAL RENT SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY 
              TEMPORARY AMENDMENT ACT OF 2023.

    The Local Rent Supplement Program Eligibility Temporary Amendment 
Act of 2023 (D.C. Law L2-0057) is hereby repealed, and any provision of 
law amended or repealed by such Act is restored or revived as if such 
Act had not been enacted into law.
                                 <all>
```
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00409

- CR

D ARRELL D ARCELL D ARBY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 396th District

Court

of Tarrant County (0807929A)

January 16, 2020

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JU DGMENT

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

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdictio n

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A.

JOHNSON, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as 

Successor-In-Interest to Washington Mutual 

Bank Its Successors and/or Assigns; DOES, 

1-25, Inclusive, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56156 

D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02609-DDP-JEM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 11, 2017**

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district 

court’s order dismissing their action seeking declaratory relief under the Truth in 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 18 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-56156 

Lending Act (“TILA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review 

de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any 

ground supported by the record. Franklin v. Terr, 201 F.3d 1098, 1100 n.2 (9th 

Cir. 2000). We affirm. 

Dismissal of the Johnsons’ action alleging a TILA claim for rescission was 

proper because the Johnsons did not exercise their right of rescission within three 

years of when they consummated the loan transaction. See 15 U.S.C. § 1635(f); 

Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410, 412-13, 419 (1998) (explaining that 

“§ 1635(f) completely extinguishes the right of rescission at the end of the 3-year 

period”). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.1 - Engagement Letter for Chuck Peck.



Exhibit 10.1


BIG CAT ENERGY CORPORATION

TRANSWESTERN ONE, SUITE 215

404 NORTH 31st STREET

BILLINGS, MONTANA 59101

(406) 255-7190


 

 

Mr. Chuck Peck

P.O. Box 310

Three Forks, MT 59752


August 21, 2006












RE:    Engagement Letter

           Director - Big Cat Energy Corporation


Dear Chuck:


The current Board of Directors of Big Cat Energy Corporation, request that you fill a vacancy on the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The Corporation has Directors and Officers liability insurance in place, which provides liability coverage up to $2,000,000.00. If you wish to see a copy of the insurance binder, please let us know. For your tenure on the Board of Directors, the Corporation offers you the following compensation, (1) Salary of $5,000.00 per fiscal quarter, and (2) Stock options on 200,000 shares of the Corporation's stock. At this time the Corporation can not give you the exact terms of the stock options which will be granted to you by the Corporation, but the option terms will include vesting provisions. The Corporation will reimburse Directors for any travel, meals, lodging, and other expenses incurred by the Director for the benefit of the Corporation. At this time the Corporation is anticipating holding monthly Directors' meetings by conference call, and quarterly meetings with all Directors physically present. The Corporation will use its best efforts to accommodate the Directors when scheduling the time and location of Directors' meetings.


If you choose to accept the position as a Director of the Corporation, you must follow and abide by the Corporation's Code of Ethics and Business Conduct. Please, find enclosed a copy of the Code. Big Cat Energy Corporation is a publicly traded corporation listed and traded on the OTC-BB, under the symbol BCTE. As a Director of the Corporation you must abide by all rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, but not limited to, the regulations and rules regarding insider-trading. In this regard, also enclosed is a Questionnaire for Directors, which eventually must be completed by each Director and submitted to the Corporation's auditor.


 

 

 





Mr. Chuck Peck

August 21, 2006

Engagement Letter-Director

Page 2




We appreciate the opportunity to have you serve on the Board of Directors of Big Cat Energy Corporation and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of your engagement as a Director. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of the engagement as described in this letter, please sign the enclosed second original and return it us in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Finally, if you agree to accept the position as a Director, please include a short biography with the letter of acceptance. Thank You.


	 	
Sincerely,

	 	
Big Cat Energy Corporation

	 
	 	
By: 
	
ROBERT GOODALE

	 	 	
Robert Goodale, Secretary/Treasurer

	 
	 
	 
	 	
Accepted and agreed to:

	 
	 	
CHUCK PECK

	 	
Chuck Peck

	 	
Date: August 30, 2006






 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enclosures
November 6, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DEBORAH LEWIS, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00685-CV V.

BRANT ROCK APARTMENTS, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the order 

signed by the court below on August 11, 2014. Having considered the motion and 

found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Deborah Lewis.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.