alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Kevin Wiemken v. Waller County, et al.

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00628

- CV

Trial court case number: 2019

- 03

- 8723

Trial court: 506th District Court of Waller County

The appellant, Kevin Wiemken, has filed a motion for default judgment against appellees, arguing appellees “did not answer in a timely manner” whether they have jurisdiction and “what species the appellee’s [sic] will take for payment for an [sic] alleged property taxes.” Appellant’s motion does not comply with the Texas Ru le s of Appellate

Procedure . Rule 9.1 requires unrepresented parties to provide, in addition to their signature, the party’s mailing address, telephone number, fax number, if any, and email address. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.1(b). Rule 9.4 requires all documents fi led in appellate courts to have double

spaced text and to be printed in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14

- point. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 9.4(d), (e)

. Rule 10 .1 requires a motion to “state with particularity the grounds on which it is based;” “set forth th e order or relief sought;” and “in civil cases [such as this one], . . . contain or be accompanied by a certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion

and w hether those parties oppose the motion.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(2), (3), and (5).

Accordingly, the appellant’s motion for default judgment is denied

.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ November 5, 2019

__
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              Financial Data Schedule Q3 1999
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         319379
<NAME>                        PSC Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    OCT-01-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                           1
<CASH>                                5,924
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                        36,857
<ALLOWANCES>                          1,558
<INVENTORY>                          23,970
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     69,627
<PP&E>                               26,454
<DEPRECIATION>                       22,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      165,268
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                47,215
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               1
<COMMON>                                121
<OTHER-SE>                           54,342
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        165,268
<SALES>                             176,177
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    176,177
<CGS>                               101,649
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        54,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       (337)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    5,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      14,486
<INCOME-TAX>                          5,065
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   9,421
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                          9,421
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.79
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.68



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Montgomery Blair Sibley, an Attorney, Appellant. Grievance Committee of the Seventh Judicial District, Respondent.

Decided May 12, 2009

*850Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the Annual Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) for the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 906.

Dated: February 6, 2009



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. 1350




I,
Frank Slootman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
Data Domain, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008, fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Annual Report on Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Data Domain, Inc.




Date: March
      12, 2009
              /s/
      Frank SlootmanFrank
      Slootman
                President
      and Chief Executive
Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3944 

To provide for a one year extension of programs under title XXVI of the 

Public Health Service Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 

Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mrs. CLINTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. NELSON of Florida) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide for a one year extension of programs under 

title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS. 

4 (a) AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FIS5 CAL YEAR 2007.—Notwithstanding any provision of title 

6 XXVI of the Public Health Service Act: 

7 (1) For the purpose of carrying out part A of 

8 such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 

9 $634,209,704 for fiscal year 2007. 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
2 

•S 3944 IS

1 (2) For the purpose of carrying out part B of 

2 such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 

3 $1,247,000,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

4 (3) For the purpose of grants to States that 

5 demonstrate unmet needs with respect to HIV/AIDS 

6 and that do not have any areas that receive grants 

7 under part A of such title for fiscal year 2007, there 

8 is authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 for fis9 cal year 2007. 

10 (4) For the purpose of carrying out part C of 

11 such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 

12 $218,600,000 for fiscal year 2007. 

13 (5) For the purpose of carrying out part D of 

14 such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 

15 $75,385,648 for fiscal year 2007. 

16 (6) For purposes of AIDS Education and 

17 Training Centers under section 2692 of part F of 

18 such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 

19 $35,983,900 for fiscal year 2007. 

20 (7) For purposes of dental programs under sec21 tion 2692 of part F of such title, there is authorized 

22 to be appropriated $13,570,182 for fiscal year 2007. 

23 Amounts appropriated under this subsection are available 

24 to the Secretary until the end of fiscal year 2009. 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
3 

•S 3944 IS

1 (b) NAMES-BASED REPORTING OF CASES; OTHER

2 CHANGES REGARDING METHODOLOGY FOR COUNTING

3 CASES.—Notwithstanding any provision of title XXVI of 

4 the Public Health Service Act, the Secretary may not, in 

5 determining the amounts of formula grants under such 

6 title for fiscal year 2007, use a methodology for counting 

7 the number of cases of acquired immune deficiency syn8 drome, or the number of cases of HIV, that is different 

9 than the methodology used by the Secretary for such pur10 poses for fiscal year 2006. 

11 (c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section, the 

12 terms ‘‘HIV’’ and ‘‘Secretary’’ have the meanings that 

13 apply to such terms under title XXVI of the Public Health 

14 Service Act. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with BILLS
#### McDonald *v.*McDonald *et al.*

The suit being founded upon a sealed note or single bond and brought within twenty years after the maturity of the instrument, and there being no plea of *non est*factum, and no evidence that the words “ witness my hand and seal ” were not a part of the instrument when executed, it was error to charge that if these words were inserted after the execution and without the knowledge or approval of the maker, the presumption of law is that it was paid.

August 14, 1894.

*Judgment reversed,.*

Appeal. Before Judge Hunt. Henry superior court. October term, 1893.

J. F. Wall, J. S. Boynton and Stewart & Daniel, for plaintiff. F. D. Dismuke and E. J. Reagan, *contra.*

In March, 1892, suit was brought on a promissory note for $100, dated March 1,1878, and due ten months afterwards. No plea by defendant appears in the record, hut the defence seems to have heen payment. The note was under seal, and the words “ witness my hand and seal ” appeared to be in a different handwriting and in different colored ink from that in the body of the note. The verdict was for the defendant,and plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was overruled. The material ground of the motion appears from the head-note.
EXHIBIT 12(b)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO COMBINED FIXED 
                   CHARGES AND PREFERRED SHARE DIVIDENDS
                          SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.                  
                     AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES



                                   Year Ended
</CAPTION>
<S>
(millions, except ratios)        1996          1995         1994
                                 <C>           <C>          <C>

Fixed Charges
  Interest and amortization of 
  debt discount and expense
  on all indebtedness            $1,365        $1,373       $1,279 


  Add interest element implicit 
  in rentals                        121           119          114 
    
                                  1,486         1,492        1,393
  Preferred dividend factor          41            89          234 
  Interest capitalized                5             4            1 
Total fixed charges              $1,532        $1,585       $1,628 


Income 
  Income from continuing 
  operations                     $1,271        $1,025         $857
  Deduct undistributed net 
  income (loss) of 
  unconsolidated companies            8             9           (7) 
                                  1,263         1,016          864
Add
 Fixed charges (excluding 
 interest capitalized
 and preferred dividend 
 factor)                          1,486         1,492        1,393
  Income taxes                      834           703          614 
   Income before fixed 
   charges and Income taxes      $3,583        $3,211       $2,871 


Ratio of income to combined 
fixed charges and preferred 
share dividends                    2.34          2.03         1.76 

Note: In 1996, all the 8.88% Preferred Shares, First Series were
redeemed and thereafter, the Company made no other preferred share
dividend payments.


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
                                    FORM 6-K
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                        Report of Foreign Private Issuer

                        PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
                                  July 11, 2005
                         Commission File Number: 0-22346
                                 HOLLINGER INC.
                 (Translation of registrant's name into English)
                                10 TORONTO STREET
                            TORONTO, ONTARIO M5C 2B7
                                     CANADA
                    (Address of principal executive offices)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
                      under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                          Form 20-F [X] Form 40-F [ ]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
                permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

 Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
     Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                 Yes [ ] No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
                  connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- ________
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT LIST

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Exhibit      Description
<S>          <C>
99.1         Press Release, dated July 8, 2005, regarding Hollinger Inc.
             Status Update.
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Date: July 11, 2005

                                        HOLLINGER INC.

                                        By /s/ Robert J. Metcalfe
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Name:  Robert J. Metcalfe
                                           Title: Executive Vice President,
                                                  Chief Operating Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50528 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TOMAS LUNA VARELA , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 577

- 1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mexican national Tomas Luna Varela (Luna) appeals the 36

- month within

- guidelines sentence he received following his conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Luna contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable because it i s greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly given his age and the attendant low risk of recidivism. He concedes that a presumption of reasonableness

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 31, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50528 Document: 00512987300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2015No. 14

- 50528
applies to his within

- guideline s sentence but urges, for the fir st time, that no such presumption should apply because the illegal reentry guideline is not empirically supported and overstates the seriousness of the offense. As Luna concedes, his argument that the presumption of reasonableness should not apply beca use the illegal reentry guideline is not empirically supported is foreclosed. United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357,
366

- 67 (5th Cir. 2009). Hi s challenge to the illegal reentry guideline on the ground that it overstates the seriousness of th e offense is similarly unavailing. See United States v, Juarez

- Duarte , 513 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2008); United States v. Aguirre

- Villa , 460 F.3d 681, 683 (5th Cir. 2006). Luna has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness attached to his within

- guidelines sentence. The district court’s comments at sentencing clearly demonstrate that it considered Luna’s age, along with other circumstances, including his criminal past, in imposing sentence where it did within the guidelines range. Luna does not point to any overlook ed or improperly considered factor s , and his mere disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed does not establish that his sentence is unreasonable. See Un ited States v. Cooks , 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009) ; see also Un ited States v. Campos

- Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 339 (5th Cir. 2008). His challenge to his sentence is essentially a request to have this court reweigh the sentencing factors, which this court will not do. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 38, 51

- 52 (200 7)

. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 14-50528 Document: 00512987300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2015
**EXHIBIT 15**
December 1, 2004
To the Board of Directors and Shareholders ofSears, Roebuck and Co.
We have made a review, inaccordance with standards established by the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim condensedconsolidated financial information of Sears, Roebuck and Co. for the 13-weeksended April 3, 2004 and March 29, 2003, as indicated in our report dated May10, 2004, December 1, 2004 as to Note 10 (which reportincludes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatementdiscussed in Note 10); because we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on thatinformation.
We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in yourQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended April 3, 2004, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-64879, 2-80037,33-18081, 33-23793, 33-41485, 33-43459, 33-45479, 33-55825, 33-58851, 33-64345,333-08141, and 333-113532 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.; Registration Statement No.333-92082 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corp.;Registration Statement Nos. 33-64775, 333-18591, and 333-43309 of Sears,Roebuck and Co. and Sears, Roebuck and Co. Deferred Compensation Plan;Registration Statement No. 333-102114 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the Sears401(K) Savings Plan (formerly, The Savings and Profit Sharing Fund of SearsEmployees and the Sears 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan) and Lands’ End, Inc.Retirement Plan; Registration Statement No. 33-44671 of Sears, Roebuck and Co.and Sears DC Corp.; Registration Statement No. 333-38131 of Sears, Roebuck andCo. and the Sears Associate Stock Ownership Plan; Registration Statement No.333-52056 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2000 Employee Stock Plan;Registration Statement No. 333-72514 of Sears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2001Broad-Based Stock Option Plan; and Registration Statement No. 333-87942 ofSears, Roebuck and Co. and the 2002 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan.
We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.
/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPDeloitte & Touche LLPChicago, Illinois
**Exhibit 31(a)**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
  I, Alan J. Lacy, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sears, Roebuck and Co.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures,or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures tobe designed under oursupervision, to ensurethat material informationrelating to theregistrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us byothers within thoseentities, particularlyduring the period in whichthis report is beingprepared;    (b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosurecontrols and proceduresand presented in thisreport our conclusionsabout the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controlsand procedures, as of theend of the period coveredby this report based onsuch evaluation; and   (c) Disclosed in this reportany change in theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting that occurredduring the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) thathas materially affected,or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting; and 
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
 (a) All significantdeficiencies and materialweaknesses in the designor operation of internalcontrol over financialreporting which arereasonably likely toadversely affect theregistrant’s ability torecord, process, summarizeand report financialinformation; and   (b) Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involvesmanagement or otheremployees who have asignificant role in theregistrant’s internalcontrol over financialreporting. 
Date: May 10, 2004
/s/ Alan J. LacyAlan J. LacyChairman of the Board of Directors,      President and Chief Executive Officer of      Sears, Roebuck and Co.