alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### ORNEY~GENERAL OF TEXAS

June 1, 1959

Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion Number WW-637 Commissioner :ofEducation Texas Education Agency .Re:Whether bonds tobe Austin, Texas issued under Section 18,Article VII, Constitution of Texas, could be construed Dear Dr. Edgar: .asrevenue bonds.

You have asked the opinion of this office as to whether thebonds which the Board of Regents of The University of Texas plans to s,ellinJuly might be construed as revenue bonds. You state that if they are construed as revenue bonds the Btate ,Boardof Education may automatically waive itsstatutory ,optionto purchase bonds is,sued by The University of Texas,,by **virtue** of theTBoard'sadopted policy not to purchas~erevenue bonds. If these bonds are not construed as revenue bonds, you askwhether aprocedure of the Board in granting an advance waiver on this proposed issue would be legal.

It is the opinion of this office that bonds tobe issued under the provisions of the 1956Amendment to Section 18, Article VII, Constitution of Texas, will be revenue bonds. This amendment reads, inpart:

"Anybonds ornotes issued hereunder shall be payable solely out of the income from the Permanent University Fund.' (Rmphasis supplied). Thus, there isno provis,ion,,or authority for the use of funds derived from taxation to service these proposed bonds. The distinguishing feature of revenue bonds is that theholders of such bonds have no claim upon funds raised or tobe raised by taxation in order to secure payment of their obligations.Honorable J. W. Edgar, page 2 (WW-637)

City of El Campo v. South Texas Nat. Bank of SanAntonio et al., 200 S.W.2d 252 (Te~.Civ.App. 1946, error ref'd).

Article 2673, V.C.S., gives the State Board of Education an option topurchase anybonds issued by The University of Texas. However, according toyour letter, the Board has adopted apolicy of not purchasing revenue bonds. SO long as this policy is adhered to, itwill have the effect of automatically waiving the option given the Board by Article 2673, V.C.S., as concerns bonds tobe issued pursuant to Section 18,Article VII, Constitution of Texas.

Since this office is of the opinion that bonds tobe issued under the provisions of theAmendment to Section 18, Article VII, Constitution of Texas, will be revenue bonds, it is not necessary to answer the second question which you asked.

RTL-s Bonds tobe issued by the Board of Regents

of The University of Texas pursuant to the amendment to Section 18,Article VII, Constitution of Texas, will be revenue bonds.
Very truly yours, WILL WILSON

Assistant APPROVRU: OPINION COMMITTEE Geo.P. Blackburn, Chairman
L. P. Lollar REVIEWWEDFOR THE ATTORNEY GBNBRAL Larry Jones By:W. V. Geppert Paul W. Floyd, Jr.
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. FALLS DODGE, INC., Respondent.

No. 72-1660.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 13, 1973.

Decided March 20, 1973.

Philip Fusco, Director, Region 8, N. L. R. B., Cleveland, Ohio, David Miller, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., for petitioner; Peter G. Nash, Gen. Counsel, Patrick Hardin, Associate Gen. Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Robert E. Williams, Atty., N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., on brief.

Edward C. Kaminski, Akron, Ohio, on brief, for respondent; Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs and Herndon & Bartlo, Akron, Ohio, of counsel.

Before EDWARDS, PECK and Mc-CREE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement of its second supplemental decision and order issued against respondent Falls Dodge, Inc., after proceedings before the Board on remand. The Board’s initial decision is reported at 171 N.L.R.B. 1580 (1968). In the subsequent enforcement proceeding before this court, NLRB v. Falls Dodge, Inc., 431 F.2d 33 (6th Cir. 1970), this court found substantial evidence on the whole record to support enforcement of the Board’s order requiring the automobile agency to cease and desist from unfair labor practices, to rehire discharged union committeeman, and to bargain with the union involved.

In that same opinion, however, the court noted that the Board had made no finding as to whether a strike of salesmen had been legal or illegal under 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(B) (1970). The court thereupon remanded the ease to the Board for specific findings of fact and Board decision.

The additional findings of fact have now been made after subsequent proceedings. The Board’s second supplemental decision and order is reported at 196 N.L.R.B. 95 (1972). On review of the record in this second enforcement proceeding, we find ample evidence in the supplemented record to support the conclusion that the March 1967 strike was a legal, unfair labor practice strike, and not an attempt to coerce the company to select the Automobile Dealers Association as its bargaining representative.

Enforcement of the Board’s order is granted.
#### Amelia Vogt, Appellant, v. Solomon S. Schwartz, Respondent.

Order of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------

               STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


The undersigned, Clement B. Knapp, Jr., is the President and Chief Executive
Officer of AMB Financial Corp. (the "Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company
of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004
(the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

     1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or
          78o(d)] and

     2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the
          Report.

     This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to the Report so
that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as the Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not intended that this
statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.



January 27, 2006                         /s/ Clement B. Knapp, Jr.
                                         --------------------------------
Date                                     Clement B. Knapp, Jr.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of George Ellwanger, Deceased. William D. Ellwanger, as Sole Executor, etc., of George Ellwanger, Deceased, Appellant, v. Henry S. Bacon and William T. Plumb, as Special Guardian of Julia S. Ellwanger, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. All concurred.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JOHN WALTER STEADMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District

Judge. (CR-93-122, CA-95-189-3-MU)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 3, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Walter Steadman, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Davis Bell, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Steadman, Nos. CR93-122; CA-95-189-3-MU (W.D.N.C. June 12, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CEO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302**

**OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

** **

**I,Alexander Toeldte, certify that:**

 

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Boise Inc.;

 

2.     Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

b.              Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c.               Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

 

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a.               All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize, and report financial information; and 

 

b.              Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: November 4,2008

 

 
|         | /s/ Alexander  Toeldte   |
|--------------|-------------------------------|
|         | Alexander  Toeldte            |
| *** *** | ***Chief Executive Officer*** |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 5, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17898]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that a meeting of the 
Geriatrics and Gerontology Advisory Committee will be held on September 
18-19, 2008, in Room 630, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. On September 18, the session will begin at 
8:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. On September 19, the session will begin at 
8 a.m. and end at 12 noon. This meeting is open to the public.
    The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs and the Under Secretary for Health on all matters 
pertaining to geriatrics and gerontology. The Committee assesses the 
capability of VA health care facilities and programs to meet the 
medical, psychological, and social needs of older veterans and 
evaluates VA programs designated as Geriatric Research, Education, and 
Clinical Centers.
    The meeting will feature presentations and discussion on VA's aging 
research activities, update on VA's geriatric workforce (to include 
training, recruitment and retention approaches), Veterans Health 
Administration (VHA) Geriatric Primary Care, VHA strategic planning 
activities in geriatrics and extended care, recent VHA efforts 
regarding dementia and long term care needs of recently returning 
veterans, program advances in Community Living Centers and palliative 
care, and policy guidance and performance oversight of the VA Geriatric 
Research, Education, and Clinical Centers.
    No time will be allocated at this meeting for receiving oral 
presentations from the public. Interested parties should provide 
written comments for review by the Committee not less than ten days in 
advance of the meeting to Mrs. Marcia Holt-Delaney, Office of 
Geriatrics and Extended Care (114), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Individuals who wish to 
attend the meeting should contact Mrs. Holt-Delaney, Program Analyst, 
at (202) 461-6769.

    Dated: July 30, 2008.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-17898 Filed 8-4-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.3





STATEMENT OF CHIEF ACCOUNTING OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE








Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the undersigned, Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Biofuels Power Corporation (the “Company”), hereby certifies that:





The Company’s Form 10-Q Report for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Sam H. Lindsey, Jr.,


Sam H. Lindsey, Jr., Chief Financial Officer


Dated: May 22, 2011
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 154 (Friday, August 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46261-46262]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18266]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-543]


Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

August 1, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR Part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879) the Office of Energy Projects has 
prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for an application filed by 
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (licensee) on August 29, 2007, requesting 
Commission approval of a non-project use of project lands. The licensee 
has requested Commission authorization to lease to Long Island Marina, 
Inc. (Long Island) 3.239 acres of project lands for a commercial marina 
at the existing, previously approved Long Island Marina on Lake Norman 
in Catawba County, North Carolina. Long Island proposes to re-configure 
and upgrade the marina. Dredging of 1700 cubic yards of lake-bed would 
be required for this reconfiguration. The marina would serve the 
general public and the residents of Long Island Resorts.
    The EA evaluates the environmental impacts that would result from 
approving the licensee's proposal to grant Long Island permission to 
expand and reconfigure its marina facilities. The EA finds that 
approval of the application would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available 
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the 
docket number (P-2232) excluding the last three digits in the docket 
number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084e4d5a4b47666461666d5b7d7878677a7c486e6d7a6b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c6a697e6f6342404542497f595c5c435e586c4a495e4f024b435a">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-
3372, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    Any comments should be filed by September 2, 2008, and should be 
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please reference the 
project name and project number (P-2232) on all comments. Comments may 
be filed electronically via Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission 
strongly encourages electronic filings.

[[Page 46262]]

See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's 
Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact 
Christopher Yeakel at (202) 502-8132.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18266 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WEDRIA LONG,

No. 09-11021

Plaintiff, District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow

v. Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

ANNAE SANDERS, ET AL., 

Defendants.

 /

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff, a pro se litigant in this civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983,

has filed a motion for appointment of counsel [Docket #49].

Unlike criminal cases, there is no constitutional or statutory right to the

appointment of counsel in civil cases. Rather, the Court requests members of the bar to

assist in appropriate cases. In Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 605-606 (6th Cir. 1993),

the Sixth Circuit noted that “[a]ppointment of counsel in a civil case is not a

constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional circumstances.”

(Internal quotations and citations omitted).

It is the practice of this Court to defer any attempt to obtain counsel for pro se civil

rights Plaintiffs until after all motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment have

been denied. A motion for summary judgment is presently pending. [Docket #40]. At this

stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs’ request for counsel is premature.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket #49] is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
-2-

SO ORDERED.

S/R. Steven Whalen 

R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Dated: June 14, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served on the attorneys

and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on June 14, 2010.

S/G. Wilson 

Judicial Assistant
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00475-CR

Dominique GREEN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7880

Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due on December 12, 2016. Appellant file a motion for 

extension of time requesting a 90-day extension of time. Appellant’s motion is granted in part to 

allow a 30-day extension. 

Appellant must file the brief on or before January 12, 2017. FURTHER REQUESTS 

FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE DISFAVORED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of December, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                          SIGMATRON INTERNATIONAL, INC.
              PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT AND
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      I, Gary R. Fairhead, am President and Chief Executive Officer of SigmaTron
International, Inc. (the "Company").

      This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in
connection with the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A, for
the year ended April 30, 2004 (the "Report").

      I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge:

      (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.

Date: April 12, 2005

                                        /s/ Gary R. Fairhead
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gary R. Fairhead
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer of
                                        SigmaTron International, Inc.