alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Alvin LOUIS.

No. 2010-KK-2547.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 24, 2010.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Lafayette, 15th Judicial District Court Div. K, No. 125266; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-01323.

Writ granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings. See, *State v. Cooper,*2010-2344 (La.11/16/10), 50 So.3d 115.
#### Earl T. CARR, Jr. v. Daniel G. ABEL and XYZ Insurance Co.

No. 2011-C-0860.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 3, 2011.

In re Carr Jr., Earl; —Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. O, No. 652-869; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-CA-835.

Denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00139-CV

MARY ELLIS JOHNSON APPELLANT

V.

RONNIE RAY JOHNSON, JR., 

SHENA JOHNSON DANIELS, 

RONICA SHAVON JOHNSON, AND 

ANDRE KEITH JOHNSON

APPELLEES 

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

FROM THE 17TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 017-269146-13

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “Agreed Motion for Remand to Enforce 

Mediation Agreement.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be 

granted; therefore, we set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the 

 1

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

merits and remand this case to the trial court to render judgment in accordance 

with the parties’ agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B); Innovative Office 

Sys., Inc. v. Johnson, 911 S.W. 2d 387, 388 (Tex. 1995).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 18, 2014
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1



                                  SUBSIDIARIES



Staff Capital, L.P.

Staff Leasing, L.P.

Staff Leasing II, L.P.

Staff Leasing III, L.P.

Staff Leasing IV, L.P.

Staff Leasing V, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia II, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Georgia III, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Texas, L.P.

Staff Leasing of Texas II, L.P.

Staff Insurance, Inc.

Staff Acquisition, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7219 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7219

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale of firearms 
     to individuals suspected of terrorism, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 6, 2018

 Ms. Lofgren (for herself and Mr. Thompson of Mississippi) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the sale of firearms 
     to individuals suspected of terrorism, and for other purposes.

    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 ``No Guns for Terrorists Act of 
2018''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITING THE SALE OF FIREARMS TO INDIVIDUALS SUSPECTED OF 
              TERRORISM.

    Section 922(d) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
adding at the end the following: ``It shall be unlawful for any person 
to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person 
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is, in 
the determination of the Attorney General, a person who is known to 
have, or appropriately suspected to have, engaged in conduct 
constituting terrorism, conduct in preparation for terrorism, conduct 
in aid of terrorism, or conduct that is otherwise unlawful and related 
to terrorism.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS

The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of Valley Financial Corporation,
certify that the Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, which accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).

Dated: November 12, 2007



/s/ Ellis L. GutshallChief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jon BALLAY.

No. 2010-OK-1149.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 19, 2010.

In re Ballay, Jon; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 97-5533; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Nos. 08-WR-1197, 09-KH-3.

Denied.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

June 23, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130451 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130451 COA: 266541 Saginaw CC: 02-021766-FH RICHARD ALAN HUMMEL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the December 9, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.

K ELLY , J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her dissenting statement in People v Houlihan , 480 Mich 1165 (2008).

d0616 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 23, 2008

Clerk
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7243 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 12, 2018 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend Public Law 115–217 to change the address of 

the postal facility designated by such Public Law in 

honor of Sergeant First Class Alwyn Crendall Cashe, 

and for other purposes. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

HR 7243 RDS

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO CHANGE ADDRESS OF POSTAL 

2 FACILITY DESIGNATED BY PUBLIC LAW 115- 

3 217. 

4 In section 1(a) of Public Law 115–217, strike ‘‘567 

5 East Franklin Street’’ and insert ‘‘83 Geneva Drive’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives December 11, 

2018. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER

PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


As of the date hereof, I, John Kunze, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report of Plumtree Software, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Plumtree Software, Inc.

A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided by Plumtree
Software, Inc. and will be retained by Plumtree Software, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.



| |                               
| | ------------------------------
| | By: /s/ John Kunze            
| |                               
|
| | Name: John Kunze              
| |                               
|
| | Title: Chief Executive Officer
| |                               
|
| | Date: March 11, 2004          
| |                               

43
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00504-CR

Baso Earl Harper, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 50,373, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Baso Earl Harper, Jr., was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision after pleading guilty to assault on a family member. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.01

(West Supp. 2002). The district court later revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and imposed

sentence of imprisonment for six years.

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v.

State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969). 
2

Appellant filed a pro se brief. In it, he addresses the allegations that he violated the

conditions of supervision by failing to pay various fees and costs and by failing to participate in

community service projects. The record reflects, however, that the court did not find these

allegations to be true. The court revoked solely on the basis of appellant’s commission of subsequent

criminal offenses. In his pro se brief, appellant concedes the subsequent offenses.

We have reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and the pro se brief. We agree that the

appeal is frivolous and without merit. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Lee Yeakel, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson

Affirmed

Filed: January 10, 2002

Do Not Publish
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERMAN AMILCAR ALEGRIA 

IZQUIERDO, AKA German Amilcar 

Alegri, AKA Juian Jose Alegria, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 16-73607 

Agency No. A205-721-398 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 15, 2018**

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. 

German Amilcar Alegria Izquierdo, a native and citizen of El Salvador, 

petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his 

appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 21 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-73607 

withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review 

for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Molina-Morales v. INS, 237 

F.3d 1048, 1050 (9th Cir. 2001), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Izquierdo

failed to establish that any harm he and his family experienced or fear in El 

Salvador was or will be on account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from 

harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members 

bears no nexus to a protected ground”). Thus, Izquierdo’s withholding of removal 

claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
(logo) ncb

National Cooperative Bank

 

 

 

February 26, 2015

 

RBS Commercial Funding, Inc. as Depositor

Attn: Jim Barnard

600 Washington Blvd. 

Stamford, CT 06901

 

RE:          Annual Statement as to Compliance

WFRBS 2014 C21

 

Dear Sir/Madam: 

 

In accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement entered into in connection with the issuance of the Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2014- C21, as an authorized officer of National Cooperative Bank, N.A., formerly NCB, FSB (the “Co-op Special Servicer”), I hereby certify that:

 

a .   A review of the activities of the Co-op Special Servicer during the preceding calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

b.   To the best of my knowledge, based on these reviews, the Co-op Special Servicer has fulfilled all obligations under this agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

Please note that the annual financial statement will be sent under separate cover on or before March 31, 2015.

 

Best Regards,

 

/s/ Karyn Mann

Karyn Mann

Senior Vice President, Investor Compliance

National Cooperative Bank, N.A.
627 A.2d 1133

#### RAYMOND J. LESNIAK v. JOHN L. BUDZASH AND DANIEL J. DALTON, SECRETARY OF STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

May 4, 1993.

A petition and cross-petition for certification of the judgment in A-3955-92T1 having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*426And the Court having remanded the matter to the Superior Court, Law Division, for a clarification and completion of the record;

And the Court having received and reviewed the Findings of Fact of the Hon. Eugene D. Serpentelli and the transcripts of the hearings conducted before him;

And the Court having unanimously concluded that the signatures of unregistered voters may not be counted,

And a majority of the Court having concluded that unaffiliated voters may validly sign nominating petitions,

And the Court having determined that in light of the foregoing and the facts adduced below, the petitions submitted by John L. Budzash do not contain the minimum requirement of 1,000 signatures of qualified voters;

And good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification (C-884-92) and the cross-petition for certification (C-885-92) are granted, and the judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed. Opinions setting forth the reasoning of the Court will issue in due course. No costs to any party.

Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices HANDLER, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN join in this Order in its entirety.

Justices CLIFFORD and POLLOCK would grant and affirm on the issue of unregistered voters and grant and reverse on the issue of unaffiliated voters.
EXHIBIT 32.2
 STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
   (A)
    
    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(a) or 78o(d)) and
 (B)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report.
   August 14, 2009
    
    /s/ Laurie L. LathamDate
    
    Laurie L. LathamChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Merix Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 27, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Janie S. Brown, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated October 11, 2005 |  | /s/ Janie S. Brown     
|                       |  | Janie S. Brown         
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer
#### In re Thomas M. DISCON.

No. 2011-B-0253.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

PER CURIAM.*

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“ODC”) commenced an investigation into allegations that respondent obtained and confirmed a default judgment even though he was aware of the defendant’s representation by an attorney in identical litigation pending in a different venue. Prior to the institution of formal charges, respondent and the ODC submitted a joint petition for consent discipline. Having reviewed the petition,

IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Consent Discipline be accepted and that Thomas M. Discon, Louisiana Bar Roll number 14219, be publicly reprimanded.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs and expenses in the matter are assessed against respondent in accordance with Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 10.1, with legal interest to commence thirty days from the date of finality of this court’s judgment until paid.

*

 Chief Justice Kimball not participating in the opinion.
Exhibit 4.5


 


CERTIFICATE OF DOMESTICATION

OF

NEXTGEN ACQUISITION CORP. II


 





 



 


Pursuant to Sections 103 and 388 of the General

Corporation Law of the State of Delaware


 





 



 


NextGen Acquisition Corp.
II, a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by its shares (the “Corporation”), which intends to domesticate as a
Delaware corporation pursuant to this Certificate of Domestication, does hereby certify to the following facts relating to the domestication
of the Corporation in the State of Delaware:


 


1. The
Corporation was originally incorporated on the 11th day of January, 2021 under the laws of the Cayman Islands.


 


2. The
name of the Corporation immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is NextGen Acquisition Corp. II.


 


3. The
name of the Corporation as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation is Virgin Orbit Holdings, Inc.


 


4. The
jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social or principal place of business or central administration of the Corporation immediately
prior to the filing of this Certificate of Domestication is the Cayman Islands.


 


5. The
domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be,
governing the internal affairs of the Corporation and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate.


 


6.  Pursuant
to Section 103(d) of the Delaware General Corporation Law, this Certificate of Domestication shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary
of State of the State of Delaware.


 




     


    


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
Corporation has caused this Certificate of Domestication to be executed in its name this
         day of          , 2021.


 


	 	NEXTGEN ACQUISITION CORP. II
	 	 	 
	 	By:	             
	 	Name:	 
	 	Title:
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATIONS



The undersigned, as the chief financial officer of Valley Financial Corporation, certify that the Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, which
accompanies this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Valley Financial Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is made solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code and is
subject to the knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350(c).



|                    |  |                        
|------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Dated: May 17, 2004 |  |                        
|                    | 
|                    |  | /s/ A. Wayne Lewis     
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, Mary Dridi, the Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President of webMethods, Inc. (the Company), has executed this certification
in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of
the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2004 (the Report). The undersigned hereby certifies 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. Date: August 10, 2004
    
    
    
    /s/ MARY DRIDIName: Mary Dridi
Title:   Chief Financial Officer and            Executive Vice President
<PAGE>   1
                   COHERENT COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS CORPORATION



      NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE- EXHIBIT 11

      (AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                           THREE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                MARCH 31,
                                                        ------------------------
                                                          1998             1997
                                                        -------          -------
<S>                                                     <C>              <C>    
Net income available for
common stockholders                                     $ 3,705          $ 2,905
                                                        =======          =======

Average common shares outstanding                        15,489           15,033

Average common share equivalents:
      Options                                               269              477
                                                        -------          -------

Average number of common and
common share equivalents outstanding                     15,758           15,510
                                                        =======          =======

Net income per common share
                   Basic                                   0.24             0.19
                   Diluted                                 0.24             0.19
</TABLE>