alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# I **OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  February 9, 1959

I

, 3011.Rogers Kellay

Senate Chmber ,:.uetin, Texas Dear Senator Xallejr:

Byyour letter the opinion of this Cepa

as it afiects the movement of perishable f&rults **end**vogetables produced in this state. In this connection, hoNever, your attention is directed to the Peat t&it the suspension shoul@ have the effeot of a general lew; thnt is, **thb** auspension sfiould apply to fruits andvegetables of a parishable ~nature wherever they mrybe 3roduoad in the State of Texas.!ion. Rogers Kelley, February 9th, 1939, ?age 2.

‘!!ith reference to your socon inquiry, you are aavisea tkzt this Department has heretofore, onJanuary 24, 1939, by In opinfon addressed to Hon. n, Lee O*Duniel, Covernor of Texas, hzld that laws of the State of Terns can not be suspended by resolution, but nust be suspended bybill. Article 3, Section 30 or the Constitution prohibits the passage of nny law excapt by bill. TheSupre!a Court of this stats In the case of City of SanAntonio Pa. I.iiaklejohn, 09Tex. 79, 33S. 7:. 735, holds that a‘law my not be repealed by resolution, and states thet *the act dich destroys should be of equal dignity with that which establishes.” The suspension of e law Is in effect apartial andlinited mpeal thereof, andwetheral’ore aZvise tha%the suspension of the lav: to which you refer must be acco=lplished by bill rather than by resolution or any other method oi prOCedUra resorted to in the Legislature.
Yours .very truly ATTORK?‘!!

GZ%%RAL

OF, T%AS
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 nine months ended September 30, 2013(the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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: December 30, 2013
July 7, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PINNACLE PREMIER PROPERTIES, INC. AND PINNACLE REALTY 

ADVISORS, INC, Appellants

NO. 14-15-01037-CV V.

GHISLAIN BRETON, CATHERINE DENICOURT AND DAVID ANDREIS, 

Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the appeal from 

the judgment signed by the court below on September 9, 2015. Having considered 

the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. James Lee STOCKWELL, Appellant.

No. 72-2130.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1972.

*681Anthony Murray (argued), of Hitt, Murray & Caffray, Long Beach, Cal., for appellant.

Vincent J. Marella, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), Eric A. Nobles, Lawrence J. Campbell, Arnold G. Regardie, Asst. U. S. Attys., William D. Keller, U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before HUFSTEDLER and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and SKOPIL,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Otto R. Skopil, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

James Lee Stockwell appeals his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1342 of 20 counts of mail fraud involving credit cards.

The assignments of error challenge an out-of-court identification, the receipt of evidence of incriminating statements by Stockwell, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the convictions.

The challenged identification was made, initially from photographs, by a Texaco service station operator who said he could hardly forget a man who “drove up in a candy-apple-red Eldorado” and tried to obtain $.300 in cash on his oil-company card by offering a kickback of $100 to the operator. The witness testified that he would have remembered the man without seeing the photographs. The government did not resort to improperly suggestive tactics in the identification procedure.

The assertion that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges is frivolous, and the objection to Stockwell’s out-of-court statements, to government witnesses is equally without merit.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47950-47951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18955]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No.: EPA-RO8-OW-2008; FRL-8705-1]


Public Water System Supervision Program Variance and Exemption 
Review for the State of North Dakota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Results Review.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 has 
completed its statutory review of variances and exemptions issued by 
the State of North Dakota under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 
Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program. This review was 
announced in the Federal Register published March 12, 2008 (73 FR 
13229-01). The Federal Register provided the public with an opportunity 
to comment. EPA Region 8 received no comments related to variances and/
or exemptions issued or proposed by the State of North Dakota.
    EPA Region 8 determined as a result of this review that the State 
of North Dakota did not abuse its discretion on any variance or 
exemption granted or proposed as of the date of its on-site review on 
March 31, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Breann Bockstahler at 303-312-6034 or 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d193beb2baa2a5b0b9bdb4a3ff93a3b4b0bfbf91b4a1b0ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="21634e424a525540494d44530f635344404f4f614451400f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: North Dakota has an EPA approved program for 
primary enforcement authority for the PWSS program, pursuant to section 
1413 of SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g-2 and 40 CFR part 142.

[[Page 47951]]

A. Why Do States Issue Variances and Exemptions?

    States with primary PWSS enforcement authority are authorized to 
grant variances and exemptions from the National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations to specific public water systems provided these variances 
and exemptions meet the requirements of SDWA sections 1415 and 1416 and 
are protective of public health, 42 U.S.C. 300g-4 and 300g-5.

B. Why Is a Review of Variances and Exemptions Necessary?

    The SDWA requires that EPA periodically review State-issued 
variances and exemptions to determine whether the State has abused its 
discretion in a substantial number of cases and to publish the results 
of that review in the Federal Register, 42 U.S.C. 300g-4(a)(1)(F), 42 
U.S.C. 300g-5(d).

    Dated: July 23, 2008.
Judith Wong,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. E8-18955 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

HUBBELL INCORPORATED, 

Appellant, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

Appellee, 

AND

LEVITON MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., 

Intervenor. 

__________________________ 

2013-1082 

__________________________ 

On appeal from the United States International Trade 

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-739. 

__________________________ 

ON MOTION 

__________________________ 

O R D E R 

Upon consideration of Leviton Manufacturing 

Company, Inc.’s unopposed motion for leave to intervene, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 13-1082 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 12/13/2012
HUBBELL INCORPORATED V. ITC 2

The motion for leave to intervene is granted. The revised official caption is reflected above. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

 Jan Horbaly 

 Clerk 

s21 

Case: 13-1082 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 12/13/2012
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<CIK>                                     0000915390
<NAME>                                    ARCH COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
<CURRENCY>                                USD

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                      DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<CASH>                                             3,328
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     35,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                       5,744
<INVENTORY>                                       12,633
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  51,025
<PP&E>                                           388,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                   146,542
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,020,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             85,079
<BONDS>                                          968,896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         351,419
<OTHER-SE>                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,020,720
<SALES>                                           44,897
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 396,841
<CGS>                                             29,158
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    131,310
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 338,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   7,181
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                98,063
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (203,046)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (21,172)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (181,874)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (181,874)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (8.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (8.77)



</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, Jeremy Goodwin, Chief Financial Officer of CHINA ADVANCED
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GROUP, INC. (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY
that:





1.      The
Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010
(the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.      Information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operation of the Company.





IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement this 17th
day of May, 2010.





/s/ Jeremy GoodwinJeremy
      GoodwinChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial and Accounting
Officer)





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. and will be retained by China
Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted May 25, 2010∗

 Decided June 9, 2010

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge

ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

No. 09-3784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN HIGH,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United 

States District Court for the 

Western District of Wisconsin.

No. 07-CR-91-C-01

Barbara B. Crabb, Judge.

Order

We affirmed John High’s conviction but vacated his sentence after concluding 

that he is not covered by the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §924(e). See 576 

F.3d 429 (7th Cir. 2009). High’s original sentence was 212 months’ imprisonment; our 

decision meant that the maximum possible sentence was 120 months.

On remand, the district court imposed a 120-month sentence. High’s Guideline 

range was above the statutory maximum, and the district judge stated that she thought 

the original sentence appropriate with or without an armed-career-criminal 

 

∗ This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel under Operating Procedure 6(b). After 

examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 09-3784 Page 2

enhancement. Our opinion had observed that the district judge was free to consider the 

conduct that led to High’s earlier convictions, for whatever that conduct revealed about 

his character and prospects for recidivism, even though two of his four earlier felony 

convictions did not meet the statutory definition of “violent felonies.” The district court 

took this conduct into account, as it was entitled to do.

High’s lawyer has filed an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 264 

(1967). Counsel observed that, because our 2009 opinion rejected challenges to the 

conviction, only errors on remand in imposing the sentence would create non-frivolous 

issues for appeal. But the fact that the 120-month sentence is below the Guideline range, 

and that the district court thought that application of the statutory factors (see 18 U.S.C. 

§3553(a)) would justify a sentence exceeding 200 months, made it impossible to frame a 

non-frivolous issue for appeal. We agree with counsel’s assessment.

High has filed a response to counsel’s brief. See Circuit Rule 51. Most of this 

statement expresses dissatisfaction with counsel’s performance in the district court, and 

during and after his initial appeal (particularly counsel’s decision not to file a petition for 

a writ of certiorari). Such arguments are not appropriate for direct appeal; they should 

be raised by a petition under 28 U.S.C. §2255. See Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 

(2003). High’s contention that a sentence of 120 months is unreasonably high is 

frivolous. Our prior opinion made it clear that a 120-month sentence would be lawful; 

we do not see any reason to think otherwise today.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed as 

frivolous.
First Department,

April, 1909.

#### Maurice Rosenthal, Appellant, *v.*Aaron Barnett, Respondent.

Appeal from an order entered in the New York county clerk’s office on the 11th day of February, 1909, requiring plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars.

Per Curiam:

We think that the complaint states the cause of action with sufficient particularity, and that there is nothing in the papers to show that a bill of particulars is necessary to protect the rights of the defendant. The order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Present — Ingraham, Laughlin, Clarke, Houghton and Scott, JJ. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
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

In connection with the Annual Report of NMS Communications Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert P. Schechter, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1)   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

|/s/ROBERT P. SCHECHTERRobert P. Schechter
Chief Executive Officer
March 16, 2005 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

This
Certification shall not be deemed part of the Report or incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference
in any such filings to the Report.

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                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 Molecular Diagnostics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter
P. Gombrich, Chairman and 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, as amended; 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/ PETER P. GOMBRICH
---------------------------------
    Peter P. Gombrich
    Chairman and
    Chief Executive Officer

August 14, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           6,578
<SECURITIES>                                    26,767
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,088
<ALLOWANCES>                                       685
<INVENTORY>                                      5,419
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,960
<PP&E>                                           7,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,305
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  62,662
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,433
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            99
<OTHER-SE>                                          19
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    52,882
<SALES>                                         51,464
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,464
<CGS>                                           18,394
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,394
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                30,005
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (88)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,273
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,643
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,630
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,630
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .16


</TABLE>
#### David L. Hough, Pltff in Error, *v.*Harvey Leonard, Deft in Error.

ERROR TO LA SALLE.

It is error íóra Circuit Court to dismiss a suit Commenced before a justice of the peace, because the papers do-not on their face show his right to jurisdiction.

It is- the duty of the Circuit Court to near the evidence, and if from that, it appears that the justice had jurisdiction of the matter in controversy, then the case should" be disposed of on its merits.

Leonard brought an action against Hough, before a justice of the peace. The summons was in the usual form,, on which was indorsed, “demand fifty dollars, justice's fee 75, constable’s fee, 30." A judgment was rendered against Hough, after a trial, for fifty dollars and costs. Hough appealed to the Circuit Court. At April term, 1850, of the La Salle Circuit Court, T. L. Dickey, Judge, presiding, Hough entered a motion- to dismiss the suit, for want of jurisdiction in the justice of the peace, which was overruled. It appeared at the trial on the Circuit, that the bill of particulars, comprising several items, filed by Leonard before the justice, amounted to $109 80. It appeared also, that after Leonard had proved his bill of" particulars before the justice, he rested Ms case for the time being", not having" allowed any crecf*457its. Hough then moved for a nonsuit for want of jurisdiction in the magistrate. Leonard then offered to allow credits sufficient to reduce his demand to one hundred dollars, which the magistrate permitted. Leonard also asked leave of the Circuit Court to amend his bill of particulars, by striking out, or indorsing specific credits, to reduce his demand to fifty dollars, which was granted. The cause was then submitted to a jury for trial, which resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of Leonard for $48 55, and costs. A motion was made by Hough for a new-trial, which wras denied. Whereupon Hough brought the cause to this Court.

M. E. Hollister, for Pltff in Error.

J. 0. G-lover and Wi. Chumasero, for Deft in Error.

Caton, J.

The question presented by this record we do hot consider an open one in this Court. At the last term in this Division, it was decided that the Revised Statutes must receive the same construction as the act of 1839, respecting the jurisdiction of justices of the peace, and that it was error for the Circuit Court to dismiss a suit commenced, for want of jurisdiction appearing on the face of the papers, but that it is the duty of the Court, upon appeal, to hear the evidence, and if from that it appears, that the subject matter of the controversy is within a justice’s jurisdiction, then it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the cause upon its merits. Ballard *v.*McCarty, 11 Ills., 503. The result of the testimony in this case, showed that a justice had jurisdiction of the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, which, as the verdict shows, was less than fifty dollars, the amount indorsed on the back of the summons as the extent of the plaintiff’s claim.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*