alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

        STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            UNDER 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350

     We, Charles E. Ramey, the chief executive officer US Dataworks, Inc. (the
"Company"), and John S. Reiland, the chief financial officer of the Company,
certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title 18 of the United
States Code that, to the best of our knowledge,

     (i) the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-QSB/A, Amendment No. 1
to Form 10-QSB, for the period ended September 30, 2001 (the "Report"), fully
complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and

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

Dated: June 10, 2003

                                             /s/ Charles E. Ramey
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Charles E. Ramey
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             /s/ John S. Reiland
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             John S. Reiland
                                             Chief Financial Officer

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO US DATAWORKS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY US DATAWORKS, INC. AND
FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Joseph COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50022.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Nov. 17, 2004.

*326Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, Douglas W. Gardner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

William Jack Browning, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Carl Joseph Collins appeals his jury-trial conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).

Collins argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal and that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction. Because Collins properly preserved these objections in the district court, we review the denial of his motion to acquit *de novo*and consider whether “a rational trier of fact could have found that the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.”1 In the instant case, testimony established that the firearm was manufactured in Switzerland and possessed in Texas. We have “repeatedly held that evidence that a firearm has traveled interstate at some point in the past is sufficient to support a conviction under § 922(g), even if the defendant possessed the firearm entirely intrastate.” 2 Therefore, Collins’s arguments are without merit.

Collins also argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional as applied. However, we have rejected such arguments and concluded that the “constitutionality of § 922(g) is not open to question.”3 This argument is also without merit.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.

1

. *See United States v. Ferguson,*211 F.3d 878, 882 (5th Cir.2000).

2

. *United States v. Cavazos,*288 F.3d 706, 712 (5th Cir.2002).

3

. *United States v. DeLeon,*170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.1999).
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN 0648-XD572


Availability of Report: California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy 
(CEMP) and Implementing Guidelines; Correction

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This action corrects a web address provided for availability 
of the CEMP and Implementing Guidelines, responses to comments received 
on the draft CEMP, and other supporting documents in a notice that 
published on November 7, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Korie Schaeffer, NMFS West Coast 
Region, 707-575-6087.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS developed the CEMP and Implementing 
Guidelines to establish and support a goal of protecting eelgrass 
habitat and its functions, including spatial coverage and density of 
eelgrass habitats. The CEMP includes NMFS' policy to recommend no net 
loss of eelgrass habitat function in California.
    NMFS provided a web address to access the CEMP and Implementing 
Guidelines, responses to comments received on the draft CEMP, and other 
supporting documents. However, the web address provided is incorrect.

Correction

    Accordingly, in the notice published on November 7, 2014 (79 FR 
66360), on page 66360, second column, in the SUMMARY section, the web 
address is corrected to read as follows: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/habitat/habitat_types/seagrass_info/seagrass_1.html.

    Dated: November 10, 2014.
Sean Corson,
Acting Deputy Director Office of Habitat Conservation, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-27193 Filed 11-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity

Established by Executive Order 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity

Meeting Agenda

September 19, 2016

American University Washington College of Law

Yuma Building

Claudio Grossman Hall

4300 Nebraska Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016

*Please note: Speakers/times are subject to change without notice.

Monday, September 19, 2016

9:00 A.M. – 9:15 A.M. Welcome and Overview 

o Camille Nelson, Dean, American University Washington College of Law

o John Delaney, Dean, Kogod School of Business (KSB) at American University

o Rebekah Lewis, Deputy Director, Kogod Cybersecurity Governance Center (KCGC)

9:15 A.M. – 9:30 A.M. Meeting Opening 

o Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, US Department of Commerce 

9:30 A.M. – 10:00 A.M. International Discussion 

o Chris Painter, Coordinator for Cyber Issues, U.S. Department of State

10:00 A.M. – 11:45 A.M. Panel 1: How did we get to here? The Policies that Shape Today's Federal IT Landscape 

o Dan Chenok, Executive Director, Center for The Business of Government, IBM

o Karen Evans, National Director, US Cyber Challenge; Former CIO, US Government

o Eric Fischer, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology, Congressional Research Service 

(CRS)

o Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, Information Security Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) 

11:45 A.M. – 12:00 P.M. Readout from the August 3, 2016 Subcommittee Meeting 

12:00 P.M. – 1:00 P.M. Lunch 

1:00 P.M. – 2:45 P.M. Panel 2: Growing and Securing the Digital Economy 

o Alan Davidson, Director of Digital Economy, U.S. Department of Commerce; Senior 

Advisor, Secretary of Commerce

o Rick Geritz, CEO, LifeJourney

o Mike Walker, Program Manager, Information Innovation Office, Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

o Neal L. Ziring, Technical Director, Capabilities Directorate, National Security Agency (NSA) 

2:45 P.M. – 4:30 P.M. Panel 3: Embracing Innovation in the Government and Preparing for the Future 

o Dr. Evan Cooke, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Science and Technology Policy, The White 

House

o Tom Donahue, Research Director, Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center

o Eric Mill, Senior Advisor on Technology, Technology Transformation Service, U.S. General 

Services Administration (GSA)

o Mark Ryland, Chief Solutions Architect, World Wide Public Sector Team, Amazon Web 

Services (AWS)

4:30 P.M. – 4:45 P.M. Public Comment 

4:45 P.M. – 5:00 P.M. Commission Discussion 

5:00 P.M Meeting Adjourned
TrueCall/Timing Advance 

Request to Reduce Date Range 

Tracking ID: 

You have requested that T-Mobile produce historical location data from our TrueCall system in response to a search 

warrant or probable cause order. Prior to incurring the time and expense of collecting and producing the data, T-Mobile 

provides the following notice regarding TrueCall records.

• T-Mobile does not rely on TrueCall data for managing individual accounts and is unable to certify as to the

accuracy of the data at the account-holder level.

• T-Mobile does not conduct systematic testing of TrueCall data to ascertain the reliability or consistency of the

location data it collects.

• T-Mobile does not routinely collect TrueCall data, which is not available in every market.

• T-Mobile will certify timing advance records prepared 10/14/19 and after. T-Mobile is unable to certify timing

advance records prepared prior to 10/14/19 and will not provide any testimony that goes to the accuracy of

same.

• For timing advance records prepared 10/14/19 and after, while T-Mobile certifies these records as business

records under Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), 902(11), 902(13), and/or 902(14), T-Mobile shall not testify to the details

of the collection, substance and interpretation of such information.

• TrueCall records are stored for 0 – 120 days, depending on the market.

After reviewing the above disclosures, if you still require production of TrueCall data, please reduce the date range to 

include only those dates for which the data is absolutely critical. T-Mobile will produce up to 7 days of TrueCall data 

per target. You may communicate the reduced date range via resubmission of the warrant/order to LERInbound@TMobile.com or via telefax to 973-292-8697. Please include a cover page which sets forth the reduced date range for 

the TrueCall records. YOU MUST INCLUDE THE TRACKING ID ON THE RESUBMISSION FOR PROCESSING AND 

RELEASE OF TRUECALL RECORDS. 

Please do not hesitate to contact T-Mobile LER should you have any questions. 

Thank you, 

T-Mobile Law Enforcement Relations

T-MOBILE US, INC. – Law Enforcement Relations - (973) 292-8911 – (973) 292-8697 (FAX) – LERInbound@T-Mobile.com

• Timing advance records are not readily accessible for production and delivery. Due to the burden involved in 

production and delivery of timing advance records, T-Mobile will only consider requests for timing advance

records in 7 consecutive date increments per target telephone number. T-Mobile will formally object to

requests that seek a greater scope.

• Please ensure the updated timeframe is within the original date range on your legal demand.

2948637

Case: 1:20-cr-00369 Document #: 57-1 Filed: 05/21/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:364
EXHIBIT 32.2

  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 of BrightStar Information Technology Group,
Inc. (the "Form 10-Q"), I, Paul C. Kosturos, Chief Financial Officer, of
BrightStar Information Technology Group, Inc., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     (3)  such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 fully
          complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (4)  the information contained in such Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
          ended June 30, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of BrightStar
          Information Technology Group, Inc.


     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to BrightStar
Information Technology Group, Inc. and will be retained by BrightStar
Information Technology Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


Date: August 3, 2004                   BY: /s/ Paul C. Kosturos
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Paul C. Kosturos
                                           Chief Financial Officer




                                       18
10038.

#### Woodard *v.*Smith-Kassell Company.

Wade, C. J.

In this ease there was an attempt to sue in a magistrate’s court on an open account, but the original summons was never signed by the magistrate, though the copy served upon the defendant appeared to be regular. The .defendant interposed a demurrer, on the ground that there had been no legal service, but he withdrew the demurrer, and thereupon filed a proper traverse to the return of the officer, complaining that there had been no legal service. Regardless of whether, under the requirement of section 4715 of the Civil Code that all suits before justices of the peace and notaries public who are ex-officio justices of the peace “shall be issued and signed by the justice *798of the peace or notary public of the district in which the suit is brought,” the failure of the magistrate to sign the original summons could be *loaived by*the defendant (as to which see *Gunnells*v. *Deavours,*54 *Ga.*496; *Jeffers*v. *Ware,*72 *Ga.*135; *Parkas*v. *Stewart,*73 *Ga.*90; *Peeples*v. *Strickland,*101 *Ga.*831, 29 S. E. 22), it does not appear in this case that there was anything to constitute such a waiver on the part of the defendant in the justice’s.court; and, there being no legal service, the judge of the superior court erred in sustaining the-certiorari.

Decided June 12, 1919.

Certiorari; from Laurens superior court—Judge Kent. June *22,*1918.

From the petition for certiorari and the answer it appears that when the case was sounded at the appearance term of the justice’s court the defendant demurred .in writing on the ground that there had been no legal service. The plaintiff moved to enter up judgment in its favor, contending that proper service appeared from the officer’s return, which was not traversed, and that the defendant, by appearance and pleading “in the form of his demurrer,” had waived all irregularities in process, absence of process, and service. The court, over objection of the plaintiff, allowed the defendant to withdraw the demurrer and file a traverse to the return of service. The court sustained the traverse and dismissed the ease; and in the petition for certiorari the rulings stated were complained of. The judge of the superior court sustained the certiorari, and the defendant excepted.

*Fred Kea,*for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins and Luke, JJ., concur.*
Exhibit
10.26

[Date]

Dear:                        


Re: Amendments to Award Agreements

This letter serves
to amend your Nonqualified Share Option Agreements and Performance
Share Award Agreements listed on Schedule A to this letter
(collectively the "Award Agreements") for
performance shares and share options granted in 2004 and 2005 under the
Aspen Insurance Holdings 2003 Share Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"). These changes were adopted by the
Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Aspen Insurance
Holdings Limited (the "Company") on July 26,
2005. Except as expressly amended by this letter, the provisions of the
Award Agreements and the Plan remain in full force and effect.

The Compensation Committee has amended your Award Agreements to
modify the vesting and termination provisions of your share options and
performance shares upon the occurrence of certain "Trigger
Events." The Trigger Events include:

		
	• 	the termination of your employment by the
Company without cause (as defined in the Award Agreements); and


		
	• 	the termination of your employment in
Bermuda on the grounds that your work permit has expired and cannot be
renewed (due to reasons other than your improper conduct or
determination that you are not fit and proper by the relevant
regulatory agency, or similar event), and the Company is not able to
offer you a reasonable employment position based in the United
Kingdom.


Upon the occurrence of a Trigger Event, any share
options for which the applicable performance target has been achieved
at the time of the Trigger Event (but for the passage of time), will
immediately vest and become exercisable. Furthermore, with respect to
performance shares and other share options for which the relevant
performance targets have yet to be achieved, upon the occurrence of a
Trigger Event, your entitlement to these awards will be preserved and
will vest (and options will become exercisable) subject to the
achievement of the relevant performance targets, at the same time as
the other employees would become entitled to their options and
performance shares.

Additionally, for any share options that
vest and become exercisable after termination in connection with a
Trigger Event, such options may be exercised in whole or in part at any
time prior to the later of (a) the date on which the options would
expire under the Plan after your termination, or (b) the date that is
three months after the date the option became exercisable.

Finally, the payment of performance shares that vest as described
above following a Trigger Event will not be subject to your continued
employment with the Company until the date of payment.

As this
letter amends your Award Agreements, it should be retained in your
records and kept with copies of your Award Agreements.

Respectfully,

    
    



ASPEN INSURANCE HOLDINGS
LIMITED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF NextGen 1.7.1.1

Eastern Division

Demetrius Johnson

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04156

Honorable Sara L. Ellis

Reynaldo Guevara, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, August 2, 2024:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis: Motions [290], [292], and

[294] are resolved as stated on the record on 1/25/2024 [298]. Mailed notice(rj, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04156 Document #: 359 Filed: 08/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:52270
Opinion issued June 18, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00295-CV

———————————

IN RE ADERONKE ADEREMI, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Aderonke Aderemi, proceeding pro se, has filed an “Application for 

Writ of Prohibition, and[/]or Writ of Mandamus,” seeking to “prohibit the trial court 

Judge Audrie Lawton-Evans without jurisdiction from unlawful interference, 

reviewing, interpreting, relitigating the immediate refiling of [real party in interest,] 

Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC[,] forcible detainer suit before the mandate 
2

was issued and the trial court unlawfully on April 9[], 2024 setting under advisement 

the Honorable First Court of Appeals mandate issued on January 19[], 2024.”1

Our review of relator’s mandamus petition reflects that relator has failed to 

establish that she is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions 

are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Hightower, Rivas-Molloy, and Farris.

1 The underlying case is Massandra KV Vineyards Owner LLC v. Aderonke Aderemi, 

Cause No. 1224685, in the County Civil Court at Law No. 2 of Harris County, 

Texas, the Honorable Jim F. Kovach presiding.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3886

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the pilot program 

for the enrollment of certain wetlands and its buffer acreage in the 

conservation reserve program to include the enrollment of certain playas 

and its buffer acreage, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 3, 2004

Mr. NEUGEBAUER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the 

pilot program for the enrollment of certain wetlands and 

its buffer acreage in the conservation reserve program 

to include the enrollment of certain playas and its buffer 

acreage, 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,

3 SECTION 1. FARMABLE WETLANDS PILOT PROGRAM. 

4 (a) EXPANSION OF PROGRAM TO INCLUDE

5 PLAYAS.—Paragraph (2)(A) of subsection (h) of section 

6 1231 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3831) 

7 is amended—
2

•HR 3886 IH 

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (i); 

2 (2) by redesignating clause (ii) as clause (iii); 

3 (3) by inserting after clause (i) the following 

4 new clause: 

5 ‘‘(ii) a playa (regardless of whether 

6 the playa is listed on a map described in 

7 subparagraph (B)) that was cropped dur8 ing at least 3 of the immediately preceding 

9 10 crop years; and’’; and 

10 (4) in clause (iii), as so redesignated—

11 (A) in subclause (I), by inserting ‘‘or playa 

12 described in clause (ii)’’ before the semicolon at 

13 the end; and 

14 (B) in subclauses (II) and (III), by insert15 ing ‘‘or playa’’ after ‘‘wetland’’ each place it ap16 pears. 

17 (b) MAXIMUM SIZE.—Paragraph (2)(D)(i)(I) of such 

18 subsection is amended—

19 (1) by striking ‘‘described in subparagraph 

20 (A)(i)’’ and inserting ‘‘or playa described in clause 

21 (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A)’’; 

22 (2) by striking ‘‘10 contiguous acres’’ and in23 serting ‘‘40 contiguous acres’’; and 

24 (3) by striking ‘‘5 acres’’ and inserting ‘‘20 

25 acres’’. 
3

•HR 3886 IH 

1 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Such subsection is 

2 further amended—

3 (1) in the subsection heading, by inserting ‘‘, 

4 PLAYA, AND’’ after ‘‘WETLAND’’; 

5 (2) in paragraph (2)—

6 (A) in the heading of subparagraph (D)(i), 

7 by inserting ‘‘OR PLAYA’’ after ‘‘WETLAND’’; 

8 and 

9 (B) in subparagraph (D)(ii)—

10 (i) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘de11 scribed in subparagraph (A)(i)’’ and insert12 ing ‘‘or playa described in clause (i) or (ii) 

13 of subparagraph (A)’’; and 

14 (ii) in subclause (II), by inserting ‘‘or 

15 playa’’ after ‘‘wetland’’; and 

16 (3) in paragraph (3)(A), by inserting ‘‘or 

17 playa’’ after ‘‘wetland’’.

Æ