alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
A signed original ofthis written statement required by section 906 has been provided to ESG ReLimited and will be retained by ESG Re Limited and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**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 theQuarterly Report of ESG Re Limited (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Alasdair P. Davis, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

 

(1)                                 The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| /s/  Alasdair P. Davis   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Alasdair  P. Davis       |
| Chief  Executive Officer |
| May  30, 2003            |

 

1

----
H. Res. 576

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

October 6, 1998.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 4259) to allow Haskell Indian Nations University and the Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute each

to conduct a demonstration project to test the feasibility and

desirability of new personnel management policies and procedures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined

to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After

general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment

under the five-minute rule. Each section of the bill shall be

considered as read. During consideration of the bill for

amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
2

•HRES 576 EH

may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the

Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed

in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for

that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request

for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five

minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic vote without

intervening business, provided that the minimum time for

electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall

be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
PARTNERSHIP'S STATEMENT OF EARNINGS AND BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,908,514
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,984,385
<PP&E>                                      45,566,509
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,376,794
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,174,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          359,009
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,479,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,174,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,565,135
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,564,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,000,385
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,000,385
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,000,385
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NO. 04 -15- 0030 5- CR

IN THE

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS

AT SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

BRIAN KEITH GORHAM

, Appellant

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AS LEAD COUNSEL

FOR APPELLANT

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

On May 14 , 2015

, the Honorable Mary Roman , Judge Presiding, 1 75 th

Judicial District of Texas, appointed the Bexar County Public Defender’s Off ice to

represent the Appellant in the direct appeal in the above styled and numbered

cause. Pursuant to Rule 6.1(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Richard

B. Dulany, Jr.

, Assistant Public Defender, hereby notifies the Court that he enters

his appearance as lead counsel for the Appellant on behalf of the Bexar County

Public Defender’s Office.

Respectfully sub mitted,

/s/ Richard B. Dulany, Jr. ACCEPTED

04-15-00305-CR

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

5/21/2015 2:12:52 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERK2 ____________________________________ RICHARD B. DULANY, JR.

Assistant Public Defender

Bexar Co unty Public Defender’s Office

101 W. Nueva, Suite 310

San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 335

- 0701

FAX (210) 335

- 0707

richard.dulany@bexar.org

Texas Bar No. 06196400

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND COMPLIANCE

I HEREBY CERTIFIY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing

notice has been served electronically on the Bexar County District Attorney’s

Office, Appellate Division, Paul Elizondo Tower, 101 W. Nueva St., Suite 71 0 , San

Antonio, Texas 78205, on May 21 , 2015

. The word count is 22 4

.

/s/ Richard B. Dulany, Jr.

____________________________________ RICHARD B. DULANY, JR.
WILLIE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-3651

Opinion filed October 20, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction.

Willie Williams, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied on the merits.

WOLF, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                        |  |                                                          
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|NAME                                    |  | STATE OR OTHERJURISDICTION OFINCORPORATIONOR ORGANIZATION
|Grande Communications Networks, Inc.    |  | Delaware                                                 
|Grande Communications ClearSource, Inc. |  | Delaware                                                 
|Grande Communications, Inc.             |  | Delaware                                                 
|Grande Communications Houston, Inc.     |  | Delaware                                                 
|Denton Telecom Partners I, L.P.         |  | Delaware                                                 
|Denton Telecom Investors I, L.L.C.      |  | Delaware                                                 
|Denton Telecom Holdings I, L.L.C.       |  | Delaware                                                 

Effective on December 31, 2005, Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. (Grande) merged each of its
wholly-owned subsidiaries with and into Grande Communications Networks, Inc. (Networks) with Networks being the surviving entity. Immediately following the mergers, Networks constitutes Grandes only subsidiary.
Order entered February 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00023-CV

MILTON ALFARO, Appellant

V.

FLOORPLAN XPRESS LLC.-OK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 471-03422-2019

ORDER

Before the Court is Collin County District Clerk Lynne Finley’s second 

notice to the Court that appellant has not paid the fee for the clerk’s record. 

Although appellant filed a letter February 10, 2020 stating he was paying the 

clerk’s fee, the enclosed check was for payment of the appellate court filing fee. 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file, no later than March 2, 2020, written 

verification he has paid or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We 

caution appellant that failure to comply may result in the appeal being dismissed 

without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b),(c). 

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-

f" y~ NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
a :

February 14, 2006

MEMORANDUM FOR Lisa Karam, Deputy Chief
Jonizing Radiation Division

From: William Anderson, Chair WA . Vi Me
Measurement Services Adviso: roup

Subject: Declaration of Ionizing Radiation Division Measurement Services in Conformity with
the NIST Quality System for Measurement Services

Based upon a review of the intermediate and final results of the NIST Quality System assessment
process and the positive recommendation of the NIST Quality System Assessment Review Board
(see Section 4.6.1 of the NIST-level Quality Manual and references therein), the MSAG declares
the following services offered by the Ionizing Radiation Division to be in conformity with the
NIST Quality System for Measurement Services:

Radioactivity Standard Reference Materials and
Natural-Matrix Radionuclide Standard Reference Materials

On October 1, 2004 MSAG declared that the calibration services of your division were in
compliance with the NIST quality system. Today’s declaration of conformance represents your
division’s compliance to the updated NIST quality system that incorporates the relevant
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 and ISO Guide 34.

Please extend my congratulations to your quality system management team and to all staff
members involved in providing these measurement services.

ce: Doug Faison, Chair, NIST Quality System Assessment Review Board
Members, Measurement Services Advisory Group

File: NVLAP: Sally Bruce
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-8083

In Re: DOROTHY P. LITZENBERG,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (MISC-94-67)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 18, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dorothy P. Litzenberg, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dorothy Litzenberg filed this petition for writ of mandamus,

continuing in her efforts to have a federal district court interfere in state-court administrative matters and criminal prosecutions. The district court is without authority to do either. Davis

v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988) (lower federal courts

cannot compel action by state officials); Gurley v. Superior Court

of Mecklenburg County, 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969); cf. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983)

(lower federal courts cannot review state court judgments); United

States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974) (federal courts cannot

compel prosecution except in narrowest circumstances). Therefore,

this court cannot order such actions. Therefore, we deny Litzenberg

in forma pauperis status and dismiss the petition. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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-QSB for the
      quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 of BrightStar Information Technology
      Group, Inc. (the “Form 10-Q”), I, John Coogan, 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-QSB for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 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-QSB for the quarterly period
              ended
              September 30, 2006 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.2


Date:
                December 21, 2006
              By:
              /s/ John
                M.
                CooganJohn
                    M. Coogan
                  Chief
                    Financial Officer
|    |                                                                                                              |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Spok Holdings, Inc.; and |
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |

|                       |
|-----------------------|
|                       |  |
| Dated: April 29, 2020 | /s/ Vincent D. Kelly |
|                  | Vincent D. Kelly |
|                  | President and Chief Executive Officer |
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3917

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New York, as the ‘‘Maxine S. 

Postal United States Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 9, 2004

Mr. ISRAEL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 695 Marconi Boulevard in Copiague, New 

York, as the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. MAXINE S. POSTAL UNITED STATES POST OF4 FICE. 

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

6 Postal Service located at 695 Marconi Boulevard in 

7 Copiague, New York, shall be known and designated as 

8 the ‘‘Maxine S. Postal United States Post Office’’. 
2

•HR 3917 IH 

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 Maxine S. Postal 

5 United States Post Office.

Æ
NIST Diffusion Workshop March 23-24, 2010 

(Agenda as of 3/15/10) 

Highlighting Diffusion Challenges Associated with Sustainable Energy Applications 

Tuesday, March 23 Bldg. 101. Lecture Room A 

8:15-8:45 Introductions and Welcome 

 Brief updates from past topics 

Diffusion Challenges for Developing Materials for Sustainable Energy Applications 

Photovoltaics 

8:45-9:15 Routes for Rapid Synthesis of CuGaxIn1-xSe2 Absorbers (T. Anderson, U. Florida) 

9:15-9:45 Modeling Cu migration in CdTe Devices (G. Teeter, NREL) 

9:45- 10:00 Cu2ZnSnS4: Evaluation of a new potential photovoltaic absorber material (G. 

Teeter, NREL) 

10:00-10:30 Characterizing 3-D Photovoltaics (D. Josell, NIST)

10:30-10:45 Break/Discussion 

Ni-base Superalloys and modeling other topics 

10:45-11:15 Microstructure Modeling of 3rd Generation Disk Alloys (A. Misra, QuesTek 

Innovations) 

11:15- 11:45 Diffusion in temperature gradients (J. Agren, KTH) 

11:45-12:15 DICTRA simulations of type 3 boundaries using the homogenization model (Ke 

and Morral, Ohio State) 

12:30-1:30 Lunch 

Phase-Fielding Modeling of Diffusion Controlled Processes 

1:30-2:00 Phase Field Simulations of Nanostructure Formation (P. Voorhees, Northwestern) 

2:00-2:30 Simulation of Diffusion Using the Smoothed Boundary Method Coupled with Phase 

Field Models (K. Thornton, U. Michigan) 

2:30-3:00 Phase-field simulation of diffusion couples (L. Zhang, ICAMS, U. Bochum) 

3:00-3:15 Update on the NIST Interatomic Potentials Repository and Atomistic Simulations for 

Industrial Applications (C. Becker, NIST) 
3:15-3:45 Break /Discussion 

3:45-4:15 Phase Field Modeling of Diffusion Controlled Defect Processes (Y. Wang, Ohio 

State) 

4:15-4:45 Phase Modeling of coupled diffusion in ionic crystals (L-Q Chen, Penn State ) 

4:45-5:15 Phase –field modeling of Reactive Wetting (J. Warren, NIST) 

5:15-5:30 Phase-field modeling of Line Edge Roughness in Block Copolymer Resists (A. 

Bosse, NIST) 

Workshop Dinner 

Café Mileto 

18056 Mateny Road Germantown, MD 20874 

(301) 515-9378 

Cash Bar 6:00 – 7:00 pm 

Dinner 7:00 

Wednesday, March 24th Bldg. 101. Lecture Room A 

Development of Standard Reference Diffusion Mobilities 

8:30-9:00 Grain boundary diffusion and segregation in copper: radiotracer measurements on 

poly- and bi-crystals (S. Divinski, U. Münster) 

9:00-9:30 Atomic mobility and diffusivity in Al alloys (Y. Du, Central South University, China) 

9:30-10:00 Computer simulation of self-diffusion in bcc Fe (M. Mendelev, Ames Lab) 

10:00-10:30 Self-Diffusivities in Liquid Alloys, (Z-K Liu, Penn State) 

10:30-10:45 Break/Discussion 

10:45-11:30 Review of Draft Recommendations for the Self-Diffusion Mobilities of Ni, Al, Cu, 

Cr and Fe 

11:30-12:00 Wrap/Action Items 

12:30-1:30 Lunch 

1:30- 4:00 pm Sub-group meeting on Reference Self-Diffusion Mobilities (Lect Rm A)
9657.

#### Gallaher *v.*The State.

Decided October 14, 1918.

Bloodworth, J.

1. There was no error in refusing to admit in evidence the letter referred to in the motion for a new trial. A letter not otherwise admissible was not made so “because the letter was received in due course of mail, . . the handwriting of the writer proved, . . and all of the ear-marks of the letter and the envelope in whieh it came showed that the letter, itself was genuine,” or “because the writer of the letter Was without the jurisdiction of the court,” or “because the letter corroborated the statement made by the defendant at the time of his arrest,” or “because the letter was the only evidence obtainable to establish the ownership of the trunk and the beverage contained therein,” or “because the absence of the. writer of the letter was fully explained by the letter,” or “because the letter was a confession on the part of the writer that the writer had committed the crime.” On the latter proposition, see *Robison*v. *State,*114 *Ga.*445 ( 2), 447 ( 40 S. E. 253), and cases cited.

2. In charging the jury as complained of in the motion for a new trial, the judge did not “intimate or express an opinion as to what had been proved.”

*(a)*Where the evidence showed that in the place of business of the defendant there was found a trunk containing several bottles of “whisky,” and the evidence that the bottles contained whisky was undisputed, it is not erroneous for the judge, in his charge to the jury, to refer to the liquid as whisky or liquor.

3. The instruction to the jury that they might “consider the ownership of this warehouse where this property was stored” could not have been harmful to the defendant, as one of the witnesses testified that “They did say that the place of business belonged to the cousin, who owned the trunk.”

4. While the evidence makes a weak case, this court has no authority to set aside a verdict which has the approval of the trial judge, when there is any evidence to support it; and there is some evidence to support the verdict in this case.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, P. J., and Harwell, J., concur.*

*641Accusation of violating prohibition law; from city court of Bichmond county—Judge Black. March *25,*1918.

*Archibald Blackshear, W. D. Irvin,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. Inman Gurry, solicitor,*contra.