alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Robert C. DUKES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-3341.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Oct. 29, 2002.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1), and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, and to file the brief required by Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
Exhibit (32)

SECTION 1350
CERTIFICATION

In connection with
the Quarterly Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2003 (the Report), I, David T. Brown, 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 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; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

/s/ David T. BrownChief Executive Officer

November 7, 2003
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 3, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-01282-CR

LARRY TOLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F04-73841-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Bridges

After Larry Toles pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation, the trial court deferred 

adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years’ community supervision, and assessed a 

$2,000 fine. The State moved to adjudicate guilt, but by order dated August 17, 2015, the trial 

court denied the motion and continued appellant on community supervision. Appellant filed a 

pro se notice of appeal from the August 17, 2015 order. The order continuing appellant on 

community supervision is not an appealable order. See Basaldua v. State, 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1977). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

151282F.U05

/David L. Bridges/

DAVID L. BRIDGES

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

LARRY TOLES, Appellant

No. 05-15-01282-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F04-73841-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, 

Justices Francis and Myers participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of November, 2015.
#### Larry E. Harris, appellant, v. Maurice H. Sigler, Warden, Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, appellee.

176 N. W. 2d 733

Filed April 24, 1970.

No. 37496.

Larry E. Harris, pro se.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Chauncey C. Sheldon, for appellee.

Heard before White, C. J., Carter, Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ.

McCown, J.

This is an appeal from proceedings had in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, ostensibly pursuant to the Post Conviction Act.

The petitioner, Larry E. Harris, filed a “Motion for Legal Documents,” requesting that he be furnished copies of the complaint, arrest warrant, proceedings at preliminary hearing, proceedings at arraignment, all motions filed, proceedings at sentencing, commitment papers, and any other legal documents pertaining to the transcript and bill of exceptions in .his criminal case. The district court, after examining the motion and records, denied the motion. The petitioner filed a notice of appeal and motion for appointment of counsel on appeal. The case was docketed, and the matter. submitted to this court on briefs without oral argument.

The declared purpose of the petitioner was to attempt to determine whether or not he might have any grounds for. filing a. motion to vacate sentence .under the Post Conviction-Act. , If the motion- be treated .as a motion for documents, denial would be . interlocutory and not *484appealable. Lund v. Holbrook, 157 Neb. 854, 62 N. W. 2d 112. If the matter be treated as a motion to vacate a sentence, as it apparently was by the trial court, it alleged no facts whatever which would entitle the petitioner to relief. While there is no requirement that allegations be in any technical form, nor that the grammar be any more than substantially understandable, the allegations must set forth facts. In a post conviction proceeding, petitioner has the burden of establishing a basis for relief. State v. Williams, 182 Neb. 444, 155 N. W. 2d 377.

Petitioner also complains that the district court did not appoint counsel for him on this appeal. Even if this matter were appealable, the failure to appoint counsel was not error in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Hizel, 181 Neb. 680, 150 N. W. 2d 217.

There was clearly no abuse of discretion here and the action of the district court in denying petitioner’s motion is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 Arotech Corporation (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Ehrlich, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certify that the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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.









By:      /s/ Robert S.
Ehrlich


Robert S. Ehrlich


Chairman and CEO


(Chief Executive
Officer)





Date: April
9, 2009
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00729-CV

CITY OF RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. 

Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official and Individual Capacities; Grande 

Garbage Collection Co., L.L.C.; and Patricio Hernandez,

Appellants

v.

BFI WASTE SERVICES OF TEXAS, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-15-604

Honorable Migdalia Lopez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order denying Grande 

Garbage Collection Co., L.L.C. and Patricio Hernandez’s plea to the jurisdiction is AFFIRMED. 

The trial court’s order denying the City of Rio Grande City, Texas, Joel Villarreal, Herman R. 

Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official Capacities’ plea to 

the jurisdiction is AFFIRMED as to BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services 

of Rio Grande Valley’s claims for breach of contract, restraint of trade, civil conspiracy, misuse 

of official information, abuse of office, tortious interference, violations of the contracts clause and 

due course of law clause of the Texas Constitution, and violations of the contracts clause and 

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The trial court’s order denying the City 

of Rio Grande City, Texas, Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey 

Ramirez, and Dave Jones in their Official Capacities’ plea to the jurisdiction is REVERSED as to 

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley’s claims for 

abuse of process and declaratory judgment, and these claims are DISMISSED. The trial court’s 

order granting BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande 

Valley’s request for a temporary injunction is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that BFI Waste 

Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellants.
04-15-00729-CV

- 2 -

SIGNED September 21, 2016.

_____________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice
#### Joseph M. MARBLY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert S. MUELLER; Bruce Gebhardt; Linda Hunt; Robert J. Jordan; Richard G. Paul; Kevin B. Franks; Richard Lnu; Paul Lnu; Kevin Lnu; Frank Lnu; Gerald Lnu; James Lnu; Gregory Lnu; Raymond Lnu; Kraig Lnu; David Lnu; Dennis Lnu; Carla Lnu; Akeia Lnu, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-2490.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 11, 2003.

Before NORRIS, BATCHELDER, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

*ORDER*

Joseph M. Marbly appeals a district court order that denied his petition for leave to file his civil rights complaint brought, inter alia, pursuant to the authority announced in *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

Plaintiff has filed numerous federal lawsuits in which he has alleged that federal agents harassed him and kept him under surveillance after he filed employment discrimination complaints and lawsuits involving his employment with the Internal Revenue Service. Eventually, the district court entered an order enjoining plaintiff from filing any further vexatious lawsuits in an effort to relitigate these matters, and this court affirmed the district court’s injunctive order on appeal. *Marbly v. Kay.*No. 00-1530, 2000 WL 1827783 (6th Cir. Dec.8, 2000). In this case, plaintiff filed a petition for leave to file yet another lawsuit involving alleged harassment at the hands of federal agents. The district court denied the petition, and plaintiff filed a timely notice of appeal.

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court properly denied plaintiff’s petition for leave to file another complaint. Plaintiffs petition is yet another attempt to litigate claims similar to those asserted in numerous other federal lawsuits alleging harassment at the hands of federal agents. *See Marbly v. Rubin,*No. 99-1384, 2000 WL 32009 (6th Cir. Jan.4, 2000); *Marbly v. Rubin,*No. 99-1071, 1999 WL 1023578 (6th Cir. Nov.5, 1999); *Marbly v. Rubin,*No. 98-2039, 1999 WL 775904 (6th Cir. Sept.24, 1999); *Marbly v. Rubin,*No. 98-1846, 1999 WL 645662 (6th Cir. Aug.13, 1999). Plaintiffs complaint does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted in any event. *See Ana Leon T. v. Fed. Reserve Bank,*823 F.2d 928, 930 (6th Cir.1987). Accordingly, the district court properly denied plaintiffs petition.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.
Exhibit 32.2



| |  |                                                                                                                                      |  | 
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
| |  | Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Paradise, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack M. Laskowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Paradise, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 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 and 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 Paradise, Inc.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                      |  |                        
|------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Jack M. Laskowitz                 |  | Date: November 13, 2009
|Jack M. Laskowitz                     |  |                        
|Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |  |
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Office of Thrift Supervision 

          - [AC-25: OTS Nos. 06789] 

                    Notice is hereby given that on August 13, 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision approved the application of Elk County Savings and Loan Association, Ridgway, Pennsylvania, to convert to the stock form of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection by appointment (phone number: (202) 906-5922 or e-mail:                     *Public.Info@OTS.Treas.gov*) at the Public Reading Room, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552, and the OTS Northeast Regional Office, Harborside Financial Center, Plaza Five, Suite 1600, Jersey City, NJ 07311.                 

By the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

Dated: August 14, 2008. 

Sandra E. Evans, 

Federal Register Liaison. 

[FR Doc. E8-19226 Filed 8-20-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
Exhibit 10(b)



 EXHIBIT (10)(b) 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 







 Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in the Statement of Additional Information
and to use of our reports: (1) dated April 28, 2014, with respect to the statutory-basis financial statements and schedules of Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio and (2) dated April 28, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of the
subaccounts of the WRL Series Annuity Account, included in Post-Effective Amendment No. 19 to the Registration Statement (Form N-4, No. 333-82705) and related Prospectus of WRL Freedom Premier. 

 

			
	 Des Moines, IA
 April 28, 2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>  THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED  FROM
THE CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, AND CASH FLOWS
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<CIK> 0000075527
<NAME> PACIFIC ENTERPRISES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,163
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        142
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,146
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           455
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                      84
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,990
<COMMON>                                         1,054
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                376
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,383
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         80
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,016
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 281
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      274
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,956
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    4,990
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         2025
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               121
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        1682
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            343
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   9
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            78
<NET-INCOME>                                       144
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          3
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      141
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             330
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.74
        

</TABLE>
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 684

To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips to any country

that does not provide reciprocal access to its markets for finished wood

products and paper produced in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 25, 1995

Mr. WILSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on International Relations

A BILL

To prohibit exports of unprocessed timber and wood chips

to any country that does not provide reciprocal access

to its markets for finished wood products and paper

produced in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXPORTS OF UNPROCESSED

4 TIMBER AND WOOD CHIPS TO COUNTRIES

5 RESTRICTING ACCESS OF UNITED STATES

6 FINISHED WOOD PRODUCTS AND PAPER.

7 (a) PROHIBITION.—No unprocessed timber or wood

8 chips may be exported from the United States to any
2

•HR 684 IH

1 country that does not provide reciprocal access to its mar2 kets for finished wood products and paper produced in the

3 United States.

4 (b) EXERCISE OF AUTHORITIES.—The President

5 shall exercise the authorities of the Export Administration

6 Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.) to carry out this

7 section.

8 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section—

9 (1) the term ‘‘unprocessed timber’’ has the

10 meaning given that term in section 493(7) of the

11 Forest Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief

12 Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 620e(7));

13 (2) the term ‘‘finished wood products’’ means

14 wood products other than unprocessed timber; and

15 (3) the term ‘‘United States’’ includes any com16 monwealth, territory, or possession of the United

17 States.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM PACIFIC
BELL AND SUBSIDIARIES' SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AS 
RESTATED, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                   
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             48
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,083
<ALLOWANCES>                                      168
<INVENTORY>                                         0<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,451 
<PP&E>                                         29,810
<DEPRECIATION>                                 18,353
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 14,942
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,661
<BONDS>                                         5,281
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          225
<OTHER-SE>                                      3,077
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   14,942
<SALES>                                             0<F2>
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,047
<CGS>                                               0<F3>
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                1,386
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                320
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                      575
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               893
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
<FN>
<F1> THIS AMOUNT IS IMMATERIAL.
<F2> NET SALES OF TANGIBLE PRODUCTS IS NOT MORE THAN 10% OF TOTAL OPERATING
     REVENUES AND THEREFORE HAS NOT BEEN STATED SEPARATELY IN THE FINANCIAL
     STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).  THIS AMOUNT IS
     INCLUDED IN THE "TOTAL REVENUES" TAG.
<F3> COST OF TANGIBLE GOODS SOLD IS INCLUDED IN COST OF SERVICES AND PRODUCTS
     IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE "TOTAL COST" TAG, PURSUANT TO 
     REGULATION S-X, RULE 5-03(B).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>