alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.


Date:  August 5, 2005                                 /s/
                                                      Ronald A. Duncan
                                                      Chief Executive Officer
                                                      GCI, Inc.


                                       1
Exhibit 8.1
 WNS (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 S/No.
    
    Name of Subsidiary
    
    Place of Incorporation1.
    
    WNS Global Services Netherlands Cooperative U.A.
    
    The Netherlands2.
    
    WNS North America, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA3.
    
    WNS Global Services (UK) Limited
    
    United Kingdom4.
    
    Town & Country Assistance Limited
    
    United Kingdom5.
    
    Business Applications Associates Limited
    
    United Kingdom6.
    
    WNS (Mauritius) Limited
    
    Mauritius7.
    
    WNS Global Services (Romania) S.R.L.
    
    Romania8.
    
    WNS Philippines Inc.
    
    The Philippines9.
    
    WNS Mortgage Services Private Limited
    
    India10.
    
    WNS Workflow Technologies Limited
    
    United Kingdom11.
    
    Chang Limited
    
    United Kingdom12.
    
    Call 24-7 Limited
    
    United Kingdom13.
    
    Business Associates Application, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA14.
    
    Baizan International Software Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd.
    
    China15.
    
    WNS Capital Investment Limited
    
    Mauritius16.
    
    WNS Global Services (Private) Limited
    
    Sri Lanka17.
    
    WNS Customer Solutions (Singapore) Private Limited
    
    Singapore18.
    
    WNS Customer Solutions (Private) Limited
    
    Sri Lanka19.
    
    First Offshoring Technologies Private Limited
    
    India20.
    
    Servicesource Offshore Technologies Private Limited
    
    India21.
    
    Hi-Tech Offshoring Services Private Limited
    
    India22.
    
    WNS Global Services Private Limited
    
    India23.
    
    Ntrance Customer Services Private Limited
    
    India24.
    
    Customer Operational Services (Chennai) Private Limited
    
    India25.
    
    Noida Customer Operations Private Limited
    
    India26.
    
    WNS Customer Solutions Private Limited
    
    India27.
    
    WNS Customer Solutions Shared Services Private Limited
    
    India28.
    
    WNS Workflow Technologies (India) Private Limited
    
    India29.
    
    Marketics Technologies (India) Private Limited
    
    India30.
    
    Marketics, Inc.
    
    Delaware, USA
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 20, 2016.

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

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 20, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0111. TRACY KUZMINSKY v. VICKY CHAPMAN .

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

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

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

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2013CV234401
18625.

#### Driver *et al. v.*Sheffield, Executrix.

Almand, Justice.

To the application of Mrs. Bonzie Sheffield to propound the will of W. J. Sheffield in the Court of Ordinary of Carroll County, Effie Driver and others filed a caveat. On the hearing, the ordinary found against the caveators and admitted the will to probate. Thereupon the caveators filed an appeal to the superior court. When the case came on for a hearing in that court, the demurrer of the propounder was sustained and the caveat dismissed. Neither the bill of exceptions nor the record shows that any other proceedings were had in the case on appeal. The sole assignment of error in the bill of exceptions brought by the caveators is that the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the caveat and in dismissing the latter. *Held:*

1. The motion of the defendant in error to dismiss the bill of exceptions because it appears that the same was not certified within 20 days from the date of the order complained of, on the ground that the act of December 21, 1953 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov.-Dee. Sess., pp. 279-280) was ineffective as repealing Rule 6 of this court (Ga. L. 1946, pp. 726, 734-35), is denied, this motion being controlled by the ruling in *Gordy*v. *Dunwody,*ante.

2. The bill of exceptions containing no assignment of error upon any judgment awarding or refusing probate of the will, or dismissing the appeal, but only on the order striking the caveat on general demurrer, and such judgment not being a final termination of the case, this court is *818without jurisdiction, to entertain the writ of error. *Whiddon*v. *Hill,*180 *Ga.*430 (179 S. E. 104); *Shropshire*v. *Broome,*207 *Ga.*313 (2) (61 S. E. 2d 284).

Argued June 15, 1954

Decided July 13, 1954.

*Lamar Knight, Robert D. Tisinger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Shirley C. Boykin, Boykin & Boykin, James F. McNamara,*contra.

*Writ of error dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Wyatt, P. J., who dissents from headnote one, and therefore from the judgment of dismissal.*
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00115-CR

JAMES CLAYTON GARRETT APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1419884D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant James Clayton Garrett entered an open plea of guilty to robbery 

causing bodily injury and pleaded true to a repeat offender notice. Following the 

preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court conducted a 

punishment hearing, convicted Garrett of the underlying offense, and sentenced 

him to ten years’ confinement.

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

Garrett’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw 

and a brief in support of that motion. Counsel avers that in his professional 

opinion, the appeal is frivolous. Counsel’s brief and motion meet the 

requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of 

the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See

386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel 

notified Garrett of his motion to withdraw, provided him a copy of the motion and 

brief, informed him of his right to file a pro se response, informed him of his right 

to seek discretionary review should this court hold the appeal is frivolous, and 

took concrete measures to facilitate Garrett’s review of the appellate record. See

436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court informed Garrett that he 

may file a pro se response to counsel’s brief, and he did so. The State did not 

submit a brief.

Once an appellant’s court-appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on 

the ground that the appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders, this 

court is obligated to undertake an independent examination of the record. See 

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Mays v. State, 

904 S.W.2d 920, 922–23 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995, no pet.). Only then may 

we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–

83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988).

We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and Garrett’s pro 

se response, and we agree with counsel that this appeal is wholly frivolous and 
3

without merit; we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the 

appeal. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); 

see also Meza v. State, 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.

/s/ Bill Meier

BILL MEIER

JUSTICE

PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 22, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 168 (Thursday, August 28, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50800-50801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13167-000]


FFP Ohio River 15, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 21, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 15, LLC each filed an 
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, 
proposing to study the feasibility of the Ohio River 15 Project, to be 
located on the Ohio River in Jefferson County, Indiana and Trimble 
County, Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 15 Project consists of: (1) 2,400 proposed 
20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed 
capacity of 48

[[Page 50801]]

megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant 
facilities. The FFP Ohio River 15, LLC, project would have an average 
annual generation of 210.24 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 15, LLC, 69 Bridge 
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's website 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13167) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19937 Filed 8-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 

Non-Employee Director Compensation 

(Effective April 29, 2014) 
  

					
	 	  	Retainer	 
	 Annual Cash Retainer
	  	$	75,000	  
	 Annual Equity Retainer in Restricted Stock Units
	  	$	140,000	(1) 
	 Lead Director Annual Equity Retainer in Restricted Stock Units
	  	$	165,000	(1) 
	 Committee Chair
	  			
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	25,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	20,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	15,000	  
		
	 Committee Non-Chair Member
	  			
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	10,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	10,000	  

  

	(1) 	The aggregate fair market value of the restricted stock units is based on the closing price of MSCI Inc.’s common stock as reported by The New York Stock Exchange on the date prior to the date of grant (any
fractional shares are paid in cash). 

 Members of the Board of Directors are subject to stock ownership guidelines, under
which the target level of share ownership equals the sum of the restricted stock units granted to a non-employee director during the prior five years. Shares counted toward these guidelines include any shares held by the director directly or
indirectly and restricted stock units with respect to MSCI Inc.’s common stock granted under the Independent Directors Equity Compensation Plan, as amended. 

Additional information regarding MSCI Inc.’s non-employee director compensation program is available in its proxy statement for its
annual meeting of shareholders.
Order entered April 5, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01184-CV

RODNEY DRAUGHON, Appellant

V.

JOYCIE JOHNSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Kaufman County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 99751-CC

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s April 3, 2019 motion for a seven-day extension to file her 

brief in response. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief in response be filed no later 

than April 10, 2019.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
The State of Texas

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 19, 2014

No. 04-13-00629-CR

Ismael CRUZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR5658

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-03-1999
<CASH>                                         740,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,467,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,402,000
<INVENTORY>                                 57,975,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           103,087,000
<PP&E>                                      66,373,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,806,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             140,790,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       48,140,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       163,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,631,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               140,790,000
<SALES>                                     82,516,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            84,182,000
<CGS>                                       48,140,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               31,509,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             145,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,571,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,784,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,787,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,787,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17



</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 27, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50608-50609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-82-000]

Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company; Notice of Filing

August 20, 2008.
    Take notice that on August 13, 2008, Southern Indiana Gas & 
Electric Company (Vectren South) filed a petition for declaratory order 
requesting the Commission to grant Vectren South's two Order No. 679 
transmission rate incentives for the proposed Gibson-Brown-Reid 345 kV 
Project.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

[[Page 50609]]

the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 
385.214). 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 notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as 
appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or 
before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not 
necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other 
than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 12, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19812 Filed 8-26-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In the Interest of M.R.H.

Appellate case number: 01-18-00933-CV

Trial court case number: 16-1905-CV

Trial court: 25th District Court of Guadalupe County

This Court’s January 10, 2019 Order had directed appellant, Christopher Pat 

Hildebrand, incarcerated and proceeding pro se, to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas 

Civil Practice and Remedies Code by filing an affidavit or unsworn declaration of previous 

lawsuits and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. On February 11, 2019,

appellant timely filed an unsworn application to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court 

attaching a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement and a separate notice of 

change of address attaching his unsworn declaration of his previous lawsuits. Because 

appellant’s inmate trust account statement and declaration of lawsuits comply with Chapter 

14, appellant is not required to pay appellate costs in advance. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.004(a), (c), 14.006(f) (West 2012); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(c).

Accordingly, the Clerk of this Court is directed to mark appellant indigent in this 

Court’s records and mark him as allowed to proceed without advance payment of the 

appellate filing, clerk’s, and reporter’s record fees. On September 21, 2018, the clerk’s 

record was filed and on November 6, 2018, the reporter’s record was filed.

Thus, because appellant is incarcerated and proceeding pro se, the Court ORDERS

the district clerk to mail the clerk’s and reporter’s records to the appellant at his current 

address under his TDCJ# 02230753, within 10 days of the date of this Order, at no cost to 

appellant, and shall certify the delivery date within 15 days.

Because appellant filed his appellant’s brief on January 2, 2019, without the records, 

appellant is ORDERED to file an amended appellant’s brief within 30 days from the date 

of this Order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 2, 38.6(a)(1), 38.7.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Evelyn V. Keyes_____

x Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __February 21, 2019___
#### Betty J. ELLIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Department of Health & Human Services, Facility Services, Defendant-Appellee, and Frances Alexander, in her Official Capacity; Dorethea Dix; H. David Bruton, Dr., Secretary; Dawn Davies, Nurse Manager & in her Individual Capacity; Connie Levister, Director & Chief Administrator, Health & Human Services, Defendants.

No. 02-1428.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 29, 2002.

Decided Nov. 18, 2002.

Alfreda Williamson, Law Office of Alfreda Williamson, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Roy Cooper, North Carolina Attorney General, Dorothy Powers, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Betty Ellis appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her civil action alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. On appeal Ellis raises one issue: whether the district court improperly found that the State Defendants were protected from her Title VII suit by the Eleventh Amendment.

As noted by the district court, the Eleventh Amendment does bar private suits against unconsenting states unless Congress validly abrogates a state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. *Alden v. Maine,*527 U.S. 706, 755-57, 119 S.Ct. 2240, 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). However, the Supreme Court has held that in enacting Title VII, Congress properly abrogated the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for such suits. *See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer,*427 U.S. 445, 456-57, 96 S.Ct. 2666, 49 L.Ed.2d 614 (1976) (holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 abrogates the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity); *see also Alden,*527 U.S. at 756, 119 *181S.Ct. 2240 (relying on Fitzpatrick). Thus, the district court erred by granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on this ground. Accordingly, we vacate and remand this case to the district court to conduct proceedings consistent with this opinion.

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.

*VACATED AND REMANDED.*
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

VAMSIDHAR VURIMINDI,

Petitioner

v.

DAVID SCOTT RUDENSTEIN, ESQUIRE,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 206 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 27th day of November, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.