alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### -E 

## A’BTORNEY OF TEXAS

Honor&lo Tca Seay couaty Attora8.v Pottm Coun+q rarillo, Tsxar
Dear Hr. Seaya **Opinion Ho.**  **O-7366** Rec Authority of a gw company to ooBatluot it6 IlU66 60ro66 . publio road without authority fre,+hr oommisslaser6' oourt ofthe county. You request u opimioa frm thir departmnt upor th6 alova **subjeot** matter a6 follm6~

.

"A publio utility, a g66 oanwahioh trsmtpotir and 86116ga6, prinoiplly to town6 aad oiti68, r6lying on Artlole 11436, Vernon's civil St6tuta6, has oonstruoted on6 or mars of its distributing lima upoa and aoro66 oouaty first-olaes publio roads at poinfir wholly without any oity or toa (roads not dssigxmt6d 66 Bt6te highmays)6rithout firla obtaiairg sny oharaoter of pezmlasion or authoriratlon from the 

### oamlmionerr’ oourt of the am&y, or 86y 

### other souroa.

"It is the wntentioa 

### of the oounty tMt the line.8, a6 oonstruoted aoroaa the publio 

### road aad through rhioh gas ir transport6d, is a oonrtaxt daag6rto traffio onth6 road6 b% ths poiati rher6 St' ps8sr over the 11~0. Also, it lr the oc&uzrtion of the oouaty that the liaes 60 oonutruoted dthOut r qY 6amblUi c4Of Suthotit g iI l tl"66-68. lillOf rhioh it h66 orlled to the l ttertion of ths gas 6omm r6p66tedly, to.noamlle *HavUg lassr6Ul6d up08 v ths oourt for 6x opinloa a6 totho oounty*r.rights ia th6 pmmis~r, snd kiag ia dou% 66 to the advSo6 that should.be gixsa, ue Mm seek **the opinion**  of your offio6 ta the extent you lr6 la position to ifioiae: (1) Rhothor 

### or not the g66 oaupaqr -6. rithia it6 right6 under the 8tatut6 to oon6truat it8 line6 aoro66 th6 road M aforesaid, aad **(2)** dthin its right6 and yt the 00~6truotion is suoh a6 to reader the highmy at nuoh polti6 dsngerous, aat am the renmdies of the oovnty 5.6it6 effort to alate this dmgerous oondition brought about % the oonstruotioa of the llaer aor the hlghwsys in the mauwr that it ha6 b66a ooastruated~6 .'_-



### Honorable

Tan Seay - Page 2 (O-7386)

You are respectfully advlsed.that

the authority

to oOnStNt3t the gas line of the oanpanyaoro6s the publio road is govermd by Artidle 

### 1436 of the RevioedCivil Statutes. The authorityem-ted fromthe State mad not the countyo

We handyou herewithoopdes of the following opinions,all of whioh have deoidedor disoussed this very questions o-1806,O-2442, O-2976,O-5726,and 6791-k

If the gas company has been guilty of any negligencein the manner in which it has laid its pipes across the public road, or has been guilty of negilgenoein themanner of maintainingthe ssme,as contradistinguished from the oonstruotion of the line, resultingin peouniaxyloss fo the county, or a~ individual, the oountyor the individual injured,as the casemay be, might have a oauseof action for damagesthus occasioned, but neitherwould have the right to abate the line.

Ris trust that what II) have said suffioiently answersyour inquiries. Very trul.y

yours ATTORREXGRNERAL OF TEXAS By /s/ Ocie Speer '

APPROVRD SEP. 11, 1946 /s/ Grover Sellers AlTORXBYGERBRALOPaExLs 

## os-mtegw Enolosures Ooie Speer Assistant

APPROVED 

### OPINION cc2QdITTTF;E BY BHB Chminmn
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6731 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6731

 To amend the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 to extend the 
authorization of financial assistance with respect to the Niagara Falls 
                        National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2022

   Mr. Higgins of New York introduced the following bill; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 to extend the 
authorization of financial assistance with respect to the Niagara Falls 
                        National Heritage Area.

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

SECTION 1. NIAGARA FALLS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA.

    Section 432 of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 
(Public Law 110-229) is amended by striking ``the date that is 15 years 
after the date of enactment of this Act'' and inserting ``May 8, 
2038''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 35.1**Statement of Compliance of The Bank of New York.**I, DavidAyerdis, Vice President of The Bank of New York, a New York corporation (the“Trustee”), state:A reviewof the Trustee’s activities for the period from April 7, 2006 (the date of the inception ofPPLUS Trust Series LTD-1) through December 31, 2006 (the “Reporting Period”) and of the Trustee’sperformance under the Standard Terms for Trust Agreements dated November 5, 2004 between MerrillLynch Depositor, Inc. as depositor (the “Depositor”) and the Trustee, as trustee and securitiesintermediary (the “Securities Intermediary”), in each case amended by a series supplement betweenthe Depositor, the Trustee and the Securities Intermediary (as amended in each such case, the“Trust Agreement”), has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based onsuch review, the Trustee fulfilled all of its obligations under the Trust Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period for the PPLUS Trust Series LTD-1 trust certificates.        Date: March 22, 2007 /s/ DavidAyerdis            David Ayerdis  Vice PresidentThe Bank of New York
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington D. C.  20549



FORM 10-Q


Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934


For the Quarter Ended September 30, 1995  Commission File No. 1-5591


                  PENNZOIL COMPANY
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


             Delaware                          74-1597290
(State or other jurisdiction of          (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)           Identification No.)


Pennzoil Place, P.O. Box 2967
Houston, Texas 77252-2967
(Address of principal executive offices)




EXHIBIT


<PAGE>





                        PENNZOIL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                 INDEX TO EXHIBITS


Exhibit No.
-----------

         12    Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges for the nine
               months ended September 30, 1995 and 1994.

         27    Financial Data Schedule


<PAGE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard Donnell SHERRILL, a/k/a Nard, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-7942.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 31, 2003.

Decided Aug. 21, 2003.

*277Bernard Donnell Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded with instructions by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Bernard Donnell Sherrill appeals a district court order denying his motion for reconsideration of an underlying order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Sherrill filed his notice of appeal eighty-seven days after the district court entered its judgment, we remanded this case to the district court with instructions to make factual findings concerning whether there was excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the sixty-day appeal period. The district court made a finding of excusable neglect and extended the appeal period. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

When the United States or its officer or its agency is a party, parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal. Fed. R.App. 4(a)(1)(B). However, if a party files a motion to alter, amend, or reconsider that judgment within ten days of its entry, the thirty day period for noting an appeal is tolled until that motion is resolved. Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). An untimely motion for reconsideration does not defer the time for filing an appeal, which continues to run from the entry of the initial judgment. *Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978). These time periods are mandatory and jurisdictional. *Id.*Hence, the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration tolls the period for filing an appeal from the underlying order and a timely appeal of the order denying the motion for reconsideration automatically brings both that order and underlying order before the appeals court. *See Dove v. CODESCO,*569 F.2d 807, 809-10 (4th Cir. 1978).

The record is unclear as to the date Sherrill filed this motion for reconsideration. Without this information, we cannot ascertain whether we have jurisdiction to review the underlying order. We therefore remand to the district court for further fact finding regarding the date Sherrill filed his motion for reconsideration. 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.

*REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>        
                              THIS   SCHEDULE    CONTAINS   SUMMARY    FINANCIAL
                              INFORMATION   EXTRACTED   FROM  THE   CONSOLIDATED
                              BALANCE  SHEET  AT  SEPTEMBER  30,  1997  AND  THE
                              RELATED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND OF
                              CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                              1997  OF   PHELPS   DODGE   CORPORATION   AND  ITS
                              SUBSIDIARIES  AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
                              REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                         SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                               252,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        486,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          308,400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1,222,400
<PP&E>                                               3,242,600
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       4,892,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                852,600
<BONDS>                                              611,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             371,400
<OTHER-SE>                                           2,201,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         4,892,000
<SALES>                                              3,048,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     3,048,400
<CGS>                                                2,102,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        2,102,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     296,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   42,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      536,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                         166,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  376,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         376,500
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        6.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        6.02
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-11076

Mitchell Wagner, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Archie D. Scarborough; Keith F. Meeks; Stanley J. 

Baldwin; Richard Burgess; James Finley; Clayton 

Wheeden; Texas Kairos Organization, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:15-CV-177

Before Stewart, Graves, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Mitchell Wagner, Texas prisoner # 1543049, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal and moves for the 

appointment of counsel. By moving to appeal IFP, Wagner challenges the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 11, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-11076 Document: 00515670258 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
No. 19-11076

2

certification that his appeal is not in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

The notice of appeal failed to identify an existing judgment or order 

from which Wagner is appealing, and Wagner has not identified a 

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to appeal IFP is DENIED, and the

appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2. Our dismissal of this appeal counts as one strike under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015). 

Wagner is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be 

allowed to proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained 

or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious 

physical injury. His motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

Case: 19-11076 Document: 00515670258 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/11/2020
#### LEWIS v. BURGLASS.

No. 16143.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

June 1, 1936.

For prior opinion, see 166 So. 649.

Fred G. Veith, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Edw. Rightor and W. H. Sellers, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

*317WESTERFIELD, Judge.

We granted a rehearing in this case to consider the contention raised by appellant that appellee had waived, the right to file a motion to dismiss the appeal, which contention he raised for the first time in his brief in support of his application for rehearing.

The basis of the contention is the admitted fact that, when the case was first called for trial in this court, an application for continuance was made on behalf of appellee. The argument is that any appearance on behalf of an appellee will constitute a waiver on his part of the right to move for the dismissal of an appeal upon the ground set forth in the motion filed in this proceeding.

Appellant relies upon the following authorities in support of his position: Michel v. Meyer, 27 La.Ann. 173; Jones v. Shreveport, 28 La.Ann. 835; Jacobs v. Yale & Bowling, 39 La.Ann. 359, 1 So. 822; Claflin & Co. v. Lisso & Scheen, 31 La.Ann. 171; Campbell v. Deville, 163 La. 575, 112 So. 491; Farrow v. Thompson, 18 La.App. 404, 135 So. 80, 81, 137 So. 604. In every one of the cited cases, with the exception of Farrow v. Thompson, supra, decided by this court, the ap-pellee joined in the appeal by answering and praying for the affirmance or amendment of the judgment appealed from. In the Farrow Case the appellee briefed and argued the case‘and signed a joint motion for reargument and a joint agreement to incorporate the testimony of three witnesses omitted from the transcript. Bélieving that the appellee had joined in the appeal by such conduct, we held that he had waived his right to a dismissal of the appeal, though we recognized that in doing so we were going a little further then any of the cited cases, as will appear from the following excerpt from our decision: “Perhaps, in so holding, we are going a little beyond the authority of the cited cases, but, since the law favors appeals and abhors forfeitures, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the appeal, and the motion to dismiss will therefore be denied.”

In the instant case, the only participation by appellee in the appeal was his appearance, through counsel, for the purpose of making a verbal request for a continuance. We are of opinion that such appearance is insufficient to operate as an estoppel by waiver of the right to the dismissal of the appeal.

For the reasons assigned, our former decree is reinstated.

Original decree reinstated.
** **

**Exhibit 32**

 

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of US Gold CanadianAcquisition Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31,2007 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of ourknowledge:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated: September 29,2008

 
|   |   |
|--------|--------|
|   | By:    | /s/ Robert R. McEwen |
|   |   | Robert R. McEwen, Chairman of the Board of  Directors and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Perry Y. Ing |
|   |   | Perry Y. Ing, Vice President, Chief Financial   Officer and Secretary |

 

----
Exhibit 35.3

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                           Homecomings Financial, LLC

                RAMP Series 2006-RZ2 Trust (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of Homecomings  Financial,  LLC, as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 26th
day of March 2007.

        By:       /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
               Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
               Title:    Managing Director
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

) DIOSDADO GRUSPE, ) ) Plaintiff, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-1040 (JR) ) DONALD C. WINTER, ) Secretary of the Navy, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff was born in the Philippines in 1937 and was employed by the Department of the Navy until his retirement in 1992. See Compl. at 6 & Attach. (February 27, 2008 Decision of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appeal No. 0120080796) at 1. According to plaintiff, he was an employee of the Navy for whom “no retirement deductions were withheld” and therefore became eligible “to make a deposit to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund . . . during its open season from January 8, 1988 until January 8, 1990.” Id. at 1-2. Plaintiff filed a claim in 2007 alleging that the Navy discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin when it “failed to inform [him]” of this opportunity to participate in the Fund.The United States Equal Employment Opportunity 1 Commission affirmed the Navy’s dismissal of plaintiff’s discrimination complaint “on the grounds of untimely EEO Counselor contact,” and Commission found it “unnecessary to address the agency’s dismissal . . . on alternative grounds.” Compl., Attach. (February 27, 2008 Decision, Appeal No. 0120080796) at 2. 2 Id. at 2. The Navy “rejected [his] claim on the ground that [he has] no right to come within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, pursuant to [29 C.F.R. § 1614.103(c)(4)] which provided that ‘[a]iens employed in positions . . . located outside of the United States’ are not covered under Title VII.” 1 Id . at 2. Plaintiff claims that he is a dual citizen of the Philippines and of the United States because he was born in the Philippine Islands when the Philippine Islands were a territory of the United States. He further contends that he thus became a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Compl. at 6. He asks this Court to confirm his status as a United States citizen “so that the Department of the Navy allow[s] [him] to come within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Title VII.” Id. at 7.
In Licudine v. Winter , 603 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2009), this Court held that a person who, like plaintiff, was born in the Philippine Islands when the Philippines was a United States territory is neither a citizen nor a national of United States citizen. Id. at 135-36. Such a person, then, is an alien to3

whom Title VII does not apply. Id. The Court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge
<PAGE>
                                  Exhibit 99.2

                      STATEMENT OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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, Mark W. Simon, the Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
and Corporate Secretary of Penn Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies that to his knowledge:

1.    The Company's Form 10-Q Quarterly Report for the period ended September
      30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Dated:  November 13, 2002

                                         /s/ Mark  W. Simon
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Mark W. Simon
                                         Senior Vice President/CFO and
                                         Corporate Secretary



                                       19