alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The Board of DirectorsPSS
World Medical, Inc.

Re:    Registration Statement File No.
333-114004 on Form S-3 and Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004,
33-97756, 33-99046, 33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, and 333-58272 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject
registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report
dated February 7, 2005 related to our review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration
statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a
report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within
the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

KPMG LLP

Jacksonville, Florida February 7, 2005
Exhibit 32.0



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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 of Bay
Banks of Virginia, Inc. (the Company), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that based on their knowledge and belief: (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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



|                                        
|----------------------------------------
|/s/ Austin L. Roberts, III              
|Austin L. Roberts, III President and CEO



|                                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Richard C. Abbott                                                             
|Richard C. Abbott, Acting Treasurer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer



March 16, 2005



59
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 24 (Friday, February 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 6002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2448]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

[Docket ID USAF-2009-0060]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by March 8, 
2010.
    Title, Form, and OMB Number: USAF Heritage Program Volunteer 
Application/Registration, AF IMT 3569, V1; OMB Control Number 0701-
0127.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 198.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 198.
    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 49.5.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to provide (a) the general public an instrument to interface with the 
USAF Heritage Program Volunteer Program; (b) the USAF Heritage Program 
the means with which to select respondents pursuant to the USAF 
Heritage Program Volunteer Program. The primary use of the information 
collection includes the evaluation and placement of respondents within 
the USAF Heritage Program Volunteer Program.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the 
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: January 26, 2010.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-2448 Filed 2-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00424-CV

JERMAINE WATTS, Appellant

V.

LISA ADVIENTO, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 325th District Court

of Tarrant County (325-627998-17)

March 28, 2019

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no reversible error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the trial court’s 

order is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
II 

Calendar No. 304 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1425 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2007 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin ‘Rex’ Young Post Office 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT MARVIN ‘‘REX’’ YOUNG POST 

4 OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odes7 sa, Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Staff 

8 Sergeant Marvin ‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1425 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin 

5 ‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 304 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1425 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Post-

‘Rex’ Young Post Office Building’’. Odessa, Texas, as the ‘‘Staff Sergeant Marvin al Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Reported without amendment 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Assignment and Assumption of Agreement of Purchase and Sale



 EXHIBIT 10.3 
 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF AGREEMENT 
 OF PURCHASE AND SALE 
 THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION (this “Assignment”) is dated September 25, 2008, by and between FOWLER PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC, a
California limited liability company (“Assignor”) and FPA GOVERNOR PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”) with reference to the following: 
 WHEREAS, Assignor entered into an Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Improved Real Property on or about September 9, 2008 as further amended from
time to time, with McMorgan Institutional Real Estate Fund I, LLC (“Seller”) (the “Purchase Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS,
Assignor desires to assign all of its right, title, interest and obligations in the Purchase Agreement to Assignee; 
 WHEREAS, Assignee is
willing to accept said assignment of the Purchase Agreement; 
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Assignor hereby assigns all of its right, title, interest and obligations under the Purchase Agreement to Assignee. 
 2. Effective upon Assignor’s assignment pursuant to Paragraph 1, Assignee accepts said assignment and expressly assume the Assignor’s rights
and obligations pursuant to the Purchase Agreement and all amendments thereto, including, but not limited to, Assignor’s liability with respect to the representations and warranties set forth in Section 9 of the Agreement, and all other
indemnities and covenants contained therein. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Assignor shall remain liable, and shall not be released from its obligations under the Agreement as a result of this assignment. 
 3. Assignor represents and warrants to the Assignee that, as of the effective date of this Assignment, (i) Assignor has not previously assigned or
encumbered its rights under the Purchase Agreement, (ii) Assignor has not cancelled or terminated the Purchase Agreement, (iii) no notice of default has been received from the either party under the Purchase Agreement, and (iv) to
Assignor’s knowledge, Assignor is not in default under the Purchase Agreement. 
 4. This Assignment consists of two pages and may be
signed in one or more counterparts and all such counterparts shall be treated as one agreement. Facsimile copies of signature pages of this Assignment shall be deemed originals for purposes of the creation of a fully executed, delivered and
enforceable counterpart contract. 
  

			
	“ASSIGNOR”:
	
	 FOWLER PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC
 a
California limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael B. Earl

		 	Michael B. Earl, Manager










			
	“ASSIGNEE”:
	
	 FPA GOVERNOR PARK ASSOCIATES, LLC
 a Delaware
limited liability company

	
	By its Manager:
	
	 GF GOVERNOR PARK, LLC
 a Delaware limited
liability company

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael B. Earl

		 	Michael B. Earl, Manager
**Exhibit 23.1****Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-141042) pertaining to the Tm Bioscience Corporation Share Option Plan, in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 No. 333-134450) pertaining to the Luminex Corporation 2006 Equity IncentivePlan and the Luminex Corporation 2006 Management Stock Purchase Plan, in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-46686) pertaining to the 2000 Long-Term Incentive Plan of Luminex Corporation, inthe Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87918) pertaining to the 2001 Broad-Based Stock OptionPlan of Luminex Corporation and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118772) pertainingto the Balthrop Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement of Luminex Corporation of our reports datedMarch 6, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Luminex Corporation,Luminex Corporation’s management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of LuminexCorporation, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31,2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLPAustin, Texas
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 128 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 128

  To amend the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act to improve the 
 access of the victims of crimes to information concerning the outcome 
    of disciplinary proceedings by institutions of higher education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 2007

Mr. Frelinghuysen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Education Right to Privacy Act to improve the 
 access of the victims of crimes to information concerning the outcome 
    of disciplinary proceedings by institutions of higher education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``David Shick Honesty in Campus 
Justice Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT.

    Section 444(b)(6) of the General Education Provisions Act (20 
U.S.C. 1232g(b)) is amended by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting 
the following:
    ``(6)(A) Nothwithstanding any other provision of this section, an 
institution of postsecondary education shall disclose to the alleged 
victim of any crime of violence (as that term is defined in section 16 
of title 18, United States Code), or a nonforcible sex offense, the 
final results of any disciplinary proceeding conducted by such 
institution against a student who is the alleged perpetrator of such 
crime or offense with respect to such crime or offense. If the alleged 
victim of such crime or offense is deceased, the next of kin of such 
victim shall be treated as the alleged victim for purposes of this 
subparagraph.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Schmidt & Zeigler v. Stern & Martin et al.

(No. 1527.)

Appeal from Washington County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 91. *Jurisdiction; amount in controversy.*Wenar & Co., under a void judgment against Schmidt & Zeigler, sued out a garnishment upon Stern & Martin. Judgment was obtained against the garnishees for $99.20, which they paid. Schmidt & Zeigler brought this suit against Stem & Martin, to recover of them $102.20, balance of account alleged to be due by them. Stern* & Martin pleaded in defense the $99.20 paid by them on the garnishment. *Held,*that the account sued upon, and not the amount of the garnishment judgment, was the amount in controversy, and that this court had jurisdiction of the appeal.

§ 92. *Non-resident of state; judgment in personam against.*Schmidt & Zeigler were non-residents of this state. The judgment obtained against them by Wenar & Co. was obtained upon service had in accordance with articles 1230,1231, 1232 and 1233 of the Revised Statutes. They did not appear and answer in the suit. *Held,*this was a judgment *in personam,*against non-residents of the state, obtained without personal service of citation upon them within this state, and without bringing within the control and jurisdiction of the court any property of theirs. Whatever views may at one time have been entertained by the courts of this state, as to the validity of such a judgment, it is now too well settled to admit of controversy, that it is absolutely void, and cannot be the basis of any right. [Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 353; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. *73S. 545; Laughlin v. La. & N. O. Ice Co. Sup. Ct. La. Dec. 18, 1883; Freeman on Judgments, § 564; W. & W. Con. Rep. § 129.]

January 16, 1884.

§ 93. *Garnishment proceeding; must be a valid judgment to support.*To authorize a judgment against a garnishee, there must be a valid judgment against the defendant in the original suit. There being no such valid judgment in the original suit in this case, the proceeding by garnishment was void, and the payment of the garnishment judgment by the garnishees is no defense against the demand of appellants in this action.

§ 94. *Indemnity bond; garnishee entitled to recover on.*Before paying the garnishment judgment, Stern & Martin demanded of, and received from, Wenar & Co., an indemnity bond, conditioned to save them harmless against liability to Schmidt & Zeigler. This bond was pleaded by Schmidt & Zeigler in this suit, and Wenar & Co., and their sureties upon said bond, were made parties to the suit. In the county court it was adjudged that the defense set up by Stem & Martin, of the 'payment of the garnishment judgment, was a. valid defense, and that Schmidt & Zeigler take nothing. *Held*error. The judgment should have been in favor of Schmidt & Zeigler for their debt, and in favor of Stern & Martin against Wenar & Co., and their sureties on the indemnity bond, for the amount paid on the garnishment judgment, together with interest and costs.

Reversed and remanded.
ex1013.htm


    Exhibit
10.13

    Agreement
with Marlin Williford

    


    


    Marlin
R.Williford, Jr.

    20019 Sky
Hollow Lane

    Katy, TX
77450

    Ph:
832-277-4818      Fax: 409-835-2524

    


    


    


    September
2, 2008

    


    Mr.
Dexter Morris

    Chairman/CEO

    Labwire,
Inc.

    14133
Memorial Dr. Ste #1

    Houston,
TX 77079

    


    Dear Mr.
Morris:

    


    Marlin
Williford has served as the Chief Financial Officer and Investor Relations
Consultant for  Labwire, Inc. since November 2007. This letter
agreement will confirm his contracted compensation package as
follows:

    


    
      	
              1)  

            	
              Monthly
      cash payment of $3,000

            


    

    
      	
              2)  

            	
              Quarterly
      allocation of 175,000 shares of free-trading Labwire (lbwr)
      stock

            


    

    
      	
              3)  

            	
              A
      negotiated performance incentive
package.

            


    

    


    Your
signature below confirms the terms of this agreement.

    


    
      	
              Sincerely,

            	
              Agreed
      and Accepted:

            
	 
      	
              Labwire,
      Inc.

            
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      
	
              By:  //s//  Marlin R. Williford,
      Jr.   
    

            	
              By:  //s// Dexter
      Morris      

            
	
                     
      Marlin R. Williford, Jr.

            	
                    
      Dexter Morris, CEO

            
	 
      	 
      


    

    


    


      Mrw:cbw
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6797** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. BOBBY WAYNE WILKINS , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Wilmington
. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 7:09

- cr - 00058

- D

- 1; 7:11

- cv - 00139

- D )

Submitted : September 25, 2013 Decided: October 2, 2013

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Bobby Wayne Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Bobby Wayne Wilkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion
. The district court’s orders are not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDa niel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motio n states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability a nd dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is C ourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1518 

To allow employees of Federally-qualified health centers to obtain health 

coverage under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 14, 2007 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

A BILL 

To allow employees of Federally-qualified health centers to 

obtain health coverage under chapter 89 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR COVERAGE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, an employee of a qualified health center may 

6 enroll in an approved health benefits plan under chapter 

7 89 of title 5, United States Code— 

8 (1) either as an individual or for self and fam9 ily; and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1518 IH

1 (2) subject to exclusions similar to those re2 ferred to in section 8901(1)(iv) of such title. 

3 (b) QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTER DEFINED.—For 

4 purposes of this section, the term ‘‘qualified health center’’ 

5 means any entity that— 

6 (1) meets the definition of a Federally-qualified 

7 health center, as set forth in section 1905(l)(2)(B) 

8 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

9 1396d(l)(2)(B)); and 

10 (2) enters into an appropriate agreement with 

11 the Office of Personnel Management under this sec12 tion. 

13 (c) TRANSFERS TO THE EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENE14 FITS FUND.—A qualified health center shall transfer to 

15 the Employees Health Benefits Fund established under 

16 section 8909 of title 5, United States Code, amounts de17 termined by the Director of the Office of Personnel Man18 agement (after consultation with such center) to be equal 

19 to— 

20 (1) the Government contributions which would 

21 be payable by such center under section 8906 of 

22 such title if such center were an employing agency 

23 (as referred to in such section); and 

24 (2) the individual contributions— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1518 IH

1 (A) which would be payable under such 

2 section 8906— 

3 (i) by each employee in or under such 

4 center who is enrolled in an approved 

5 health benefits plan (as referred to in sub6 section (a)); and 

7 (ii) by reason of the enrollment (as re8 ferred to in clause (i)); and 

9 (B) which shall be deducted and withheld 

10 ratably from the pay of each such employee. 

11 (d) REGULATIONS.—The Office of Personnel Man12 agement may prescribe regulations to carry out this sec13 tion. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS