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

###### Postal Regulatory Commission

# Name of Agency:

Postal Regulatory Commission.

# Time and Date:

October 16, 2008 at 10 a.m.

# Place:

Commission conference room, 901 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001.

# Status:

Open.

# Matters To Be Considered:

Selection of vice-chairman.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Stephen L. Sharfman, general counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, 202-789-6820.

Dated: October 7, 2008.

Steven W. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E8-24233 Filed 10-8-08; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-FW-P
---

Exhibit 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements on Form S-3/A (333-170202), S-1 (333-165728), S-1/A
(333-163384), and S-8 (333-141262 and 333-164394) of our audit reports dated
June 7, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of U.S.
Geothermal Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of U.S. Geothermal, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended March 31, 2011.

/s/ BehlerMickPSBehlerMick PS Spokane, Washington June 7, 2011

---
#### HARRISON v. HARRISON.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
EX-10.10(b)



 EXHIBIT 10.10(b) 
 April 7, 2014 
 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC 

522 Fifth Avenue, 13th Floor 
 New York, New York
10036 
  

	Re:	Ceres Managed Futures LLC: Amended Schedules 1 and 2 to the Alternative 

 Investment Selling Agent Agreement 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Pursuant to paragraph 13(c) of the Alternative Investment Selling Agent Agreement dated November 12, 2013, as amended from time to
time (the “Agreement”), between, among others, Ceres Managed Futures LLC (“CMF”), the general partner of each of the limited partnerships listed on Schedule 1 thereto (each, a “Partnership,” and together, the
“Partnerships”), and Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (“MSSB”), CMF is hereby confirming that Schedules 1 and 2 to the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with Schedules 1 and 2 attached
hereto. 
 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Agreement, by signing below MSSB hereby agrees to, acknowledges and
accepts the amendment of the Agreement, effective as of April 1, 2014. 







 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our discussions, kindly sign
and return to us a counterpart hereof (by mail, facsimile or email) as soon as possible. 
  

					
	Sincerely,
		
		 	CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC
			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director
		
		 	 EACH PARTNERSHIP LISTED ON
 SCHEDULE 1 HERETO

		
		 	 By: Ceres Managed Futures LLC, the
 general partner of each Partnership

			
		 	By:	 	 /s/ Alper Daglioglu

		 		 	Alper Daglioglu
		 		 	President and Director


 Confirmed, accepted and agreed to: 

 

			
	MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jeremy Beal

	Name:	 	Jeremy Beal
	Title:	 	Executive Director


  
 Page 2









 SCHEDULE 1 

 

					
	PARTNERSHIP	  	STATE AND DATE OF ORGANIZATION	  	EFFECTIVE DATE
	 Diversified Multi-Advisor
 Futures Fund L.P. II
	  	New York; May 10, 1994	  	October 1, 2013


  
 Page 3









 SCHEDULE 2 

 

			
	PARTNERSHIP	  	ONGOING SELLING AGENT FEE
	  
 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund

L.P. II
	  	3.00% per year of the adjusted net assets of the Partnership (computed monthly by multiplying the adjusted net assets of the Partnership by 3.00% and dividing the result thereof
by 12)1

  

	1 	Adjusted net assets are month-end Net Assets increased by that month’s ongoing selling agent fee, management fee, profit share allocation accrual, the general
partner’s administrative fee and other expenses and any redemptions or distributions as of the end of such month. 


  
 Page 4
Exhibit
  32.1

CERTIFICATIONS
  OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 
  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection
with the Quarterly Report of HealthAxis Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and  Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), John M. Carradine, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and
Ronald K. Herbert, Chief Financial Officer,  do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d)); and

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

|By: /s/ John M. Carradine                                                       |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|                                                                                |  | 
|John M. Carradine
      
      Chief Executive Officer 
      November 13, 2006 |  | 
|                                                                                |  | 
|                                                                                |  | 
|By: /s/ Ronald K.
      Herbert                                                 |  | 
|                                                                                |  | 
|Ronald
      K. Herbert 
      Chief Financial Officer 
      November 13, 2006 |  |
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 21

- 00151

- CR No. 10

- 21

- 0015 2

- CR No. 10

- 21

- 0015 3

- CR No. 10

- 21

- 0015 4

- CR

MARCELLO LACRAIG GIBBS , Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No s . D37514 , D37513, D36431, and D36433

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In th e s e proceedings , appellant, M arcello LaCraig Gibbs , challenges the trial court's denial of his pro se " Motion to Obtain Trial Documents in Forma Pauperis " in each

of these cases. The right of appeal in a criminal case is a statutorily created right. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC . art. 44.02; see also Bayless v . State , 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Generally, a c riminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment. State v.Gibbs v. State Page 2 Sellers , 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n.4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990). Because appellant is not appealing from a judgment of conviction or an otherwise appealable order, we have no jurisdiction. See Ragston v. State , 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ("'[T]he standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized b y law.'" ( quoting Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

- 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008))). We therefore dismiss th ese appeal s for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant may file a motion for rehearing with this Court within fifteen days after the opinion and judgment s are rendered. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 49.1. If appellant desires to have the decision of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within thirty days after either this Court's judgment s are rendered or the day that the last timely motion for rehearing

is overruled by this Court. See id . at 68.2(a).

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Wright 1 Appeals dismissed Opinion delivered and filed July 14 , 2021 Do not publis h [CR25]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright , Senior Chief J ustice ( R etired) of the Elevent h Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: September 16, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**F.130 Funding Corporations 1** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32

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
Fidelity Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, we, Richard G. Spencer, Chief Executive Officer, and Lisa L.
Griffith, Chief Financial Officer, 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; 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/ Richard G. Spencer  |  |  |  | /s/ Lisa L. Griffith   
|Richard G. Spencer      |  |  |  | Lisa L. Griffith       
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

February 11, 2010
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 periodic report of Rancon Realty Fund V (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner of the Partnership, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that I perform the functions of chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Partnership, and that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Partnership at the dates and for the periods indicated.



This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission



|                        |  |                                      
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005 |  | /s/ Daniel L. Stephenson             
|                        |  | Daniel L. Stephenson, General Partner
|                        |  | Rancon Realty Fund V
**BOVIE
MEDICAL CORPORATION**
 
 EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 In
connection with the Annual Report of Bovie Medical Corporation (the “Company”)
on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Charles Peabody, Chief
Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 USC §1350 as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that (1) the Annual 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 annual report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Date:
July 11, 2005
 
 
 
 /s/
      Charles PeabodyChief
      Financial Officer,
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2101 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2101

 To amend the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to clarify how 
                    the Act applies to condominiums.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 10, 2014

 Mr. Schumer (for himself, Mr. Heller, and Mrs. Gillibrand) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                 on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act to clarify how 
                    the Act applies to condominiums.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS.

    (a) Exemption.--Section 1403 of the Interstate Land Sales Full 
Disclosure Act (15 U.S.C. 1702) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (7)(C), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (8)(G), by striking the period at 
                the end and inserting ``; or''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(9) the sale or lease of a condominium unit that is not 
        exempt under subsection (a).''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) For purposes of subsection (b), the term `condominium unit' 
means a unit of residential or commercial property to be designated for 
separate ownership pursuant to a condominium plan or declaration 
provided that upon conveyance--
            ``(1) the owner of such unit will have sole ownership of 
        the unit and an undivided interest in the common elements 
        appurtenant to the unit; and
            ``(2) the unit will be an improved lot.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00102-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.R.I., a Child

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PA-01527

Honorable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s January 17, 2014 order 

terminating the parent-child relationship between Mark I. and J.R.I. is AFFIRMED.

We ORDER that no costs shall be assessed against Mark I. because he is indigent.

SIGNED September 3, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2105 

To prohibit the Federal funding of a State firearms ownership database. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. COCHRAN (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. CORNYN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. HATCH, Mr. ENZI, Mr. RUBIO, 

Mr. WICKER, Mr. CRAPO, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Federal funding of a State firearms 

ownership database. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Gun-Owner Registra5 tion Information Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDING OF FIREARMS 

7 OWNERSHIP DATABASE. 

8 No department or agency of the United States shall 

9 support, by funding or other means, the establishment or 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2105 IS

1 maintenance, by a State or political subdivision of a State, 

2 of any comprehensive or partial listing of firearms lawfully 

3 possessed or lawfully owned by private persons, or of per4 sons who lawfully possess or own firearms, except in the 

5 case of firearms that have been reported to the State or 

6 political subdivision as lost or stolen. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-50900

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY DAILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CR-35-2

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

April 4, 2000

Before GARWOOD, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony Dailey appeals the district court’s denial of the

Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. A timely notice of

appeal is a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by this

court. United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Dailey’s notice of appeal was filed more than ten days after the

district court denied the motion and is thus untimely. Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 4(b). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over this

appeal, and it is DISMISSED.
#### WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY, Appellant, v. ALPINE ENTERPRISES, LTD., et al., Appellees.

No. 4575.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Nov. 10, 1972.

Wagstaff, Harrell, Alvis, Erwin & Stubbeman, Robert H. Alvis, Abilene, for appellant.

Akin, Vial, Hamilton, Koch & Tubb, Fred S. Stradley, Dallas, for appellees.

McCLOUD, Justice.

This is a venue case. Plaintiff, West Texas Utilities Company, sued Alpine Enterprises, Ltd., Alpine Enterprises, Inc., and John C. Starley in Taylor County for services rendered in installing an underground electrical system at a motel located in Brewster County. The defendants, all residents of Brewster County, filed pleas of privilege which were controverted. The court granted defendants’ pleas of privilege and transferred the suit to Brewster County. Plaintiff has appealed. We affirm.

Plaintiff argues that venue was proper in Taylor County under Subdivisions 23 and 29, Article 1995, Vernon’s Ann.C.S., because a part of its cause of action arose in Taylor County.

Plaintiff sued for the difference between the cost of a standard overhead distribution system and the underground system installed. Plaintiff does not contend that the contract was entered into or was payable in Taylor County. The evidence *189shows that plaintiff’s distribution engineer Went from the home office in Taylor County to the motel site in Brewster County to discuss with defendant, John C. Star-ley, the proposed underground system. Following the discussion the engineer testified that he returned to Abilene, Taylor County, where he performed certain engineering work in connection with the Brewster County project. Plaintiff says that because of the services performed by its engineer in Abilene a part of its cause of action arose in Taylor County. We disagree.

The services performed by plaintiff was the installation of the underground electrical system at the motel site in Brewster County. It was not shown that defendants contemplated that any services would be performed in Taylor County and plaintiff cannot establish venue by its unilateral act. Rio Grande Valley Citrus Exchange v. Leche & Leche, 144 S.W.2d 1015 (Tex.Civ.App., Dallas 1940, no writ); McDonald Texas Civil Practice, Vol. 1, § 4.30.2.

The judgment is affirmed.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 8, 2011*Release dates |  Announcements |   Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB) |  Data Download Program (DDP)**L.217 Total Mortgages** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Leonard ROMERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44219.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1972.

M. N. Garcia, Austin, for appellant.

Robert O. Smith, Dist. Atty., Lawrence Wells and Phoebe Lester, Asst. Dist. Attys., and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ONION, Presiding Judge.

This appeal arises out of a conviction for possession of narcotic paraphernalia where the punishment was assessed at 20 years. The trial was before the court on a plea of not guilty following a waiver of trial by jury.

The appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

Sgt. Jerry Spain of the Austin Police Department testified he executed a search warrant at appellant’s house at 204 Attayac on December 4, 1969. He related that upon entering the house he saw the appellant try to throw a hypodermic needle and syringe out a window, but it fell to the floor and he recovered such items. Sgt. Robert Jones also saw the appellant throw the paraphernalia and he corroborated Spain’s testimony. The chain of custody was established and the chemist’s testimony showed the paraphernalia recovered bore traces of heroin.

Pedro Alaya, a defense witness, testified that he was the one who threw the paraphernalia although he did not think anyone saw him do so. He claimed the “rig” as his.

Terry De La Rosa testified she lived at the address in question with the appellant on December 4, 1969; that only she and Alaya had used the paraphernalia. She testified that when the police entered the house she was in the kitchen and the appellant was outdoors, then she related he “was in the restroom” and still later “in the bedroom.” She admitted she could not see what the appellant was doing at the time.

The case was tried before the court and the trial judge was the trier of the facts, the *718judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony.

Further, possession of narcotics or narcotic paraphernalia need not be exclusive. See Evans v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 911; Gomez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 165; King v. State, 169 Tex.Cr.R. 34, 335 S.W.2d 378; Perry v. State, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 297 S.W.2d 187. Facts and circumstances may be sufficient to show the accused and others acted together in the possession of narcotics or narcotic paraphernalia.

The evidence is sufficient to support the judgment.

The judgment is affirmed.