alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Letterhead
      of Strategic Resources Ltd.]

    


    November
      28, 2007

    


    


    [Name
      of
      Holder of Series A Warrant]

    [Street
      Address]

    [City,
      State/Province Zip Code]

    [Country]

    


    


    
      	 	
              Re:

            	
              Extension
                of Exercise Period for “A” Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common
                Stock

            


    

    


    Dear
      _______________:

    


    Strategic
      Resources Ltd. is pleased to inform you that its board of directors has approved
      an amendment to the “A” Warrant to Purchase Shares of Common Stock previously
      awarded to you (the “Series A Warrant”) in order to extend the Exercise Period
      of the Series A Warrant for an additional year. 

    


    As
      a
      result, Section 1(c) of the Series A Warrant is hereby amended and restated
      as
      follows:

    


    (c) “Exercise
      Period” shall mean the period commencing on April 1, 2007, and ending on
      November 30, 2008.

    


    Should
      you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

    


    
      	 	
              Sincerely,

              


              


              


              John
                Anderson

              President
                and Chief Executive Officer
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 26, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, May 26, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21D0331. DANNY R. DUNN v. CARYN A. DUNN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 21CV0000088
DENY and Opinion File d October 7, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00801-CV IN RE FREDERICK ALTYMA N BROWN, JR., Relator Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-20105 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Schenck, Nowell, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asks that we compel the trial court to rule on a special appearance filed mont hs after the court granted a summary judgment motion and on other matters pertaining to the court’s jurisdiction and recusal. Entitlement to mandamu s relief requires relator to show that the trial court has clearly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Based on the petition and the record before us, we conclude that relator has failed to show his entitlement to the relief request ed. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).–2– Having denied the petition, we also de ny relator’s motion for stay as moot.

210801F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE
#### Susan Larabee et al., Respondents-Appellants, v Governor of the State of New York, Defendant, and New York State Senate et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Submitted December 21, 2009;

decided January 12, 2010

Reported below, 65 AD3d 74.

*918Motion by Asian American Bar Association of New York et al. for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
The District Court of the 20th Judicial District. County of Lake.

#### *66STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. CHASE SHEEHAN, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-05-22 DECISION

On April 8, 2010, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to forty-five (45) years in the Montana State Prison, with forty-one (41) years suspended, for the offense of Sexual Intercourse Without Consent. The Defendant shall not be eligible for parole unless he has successfully completed Phases I and II of the sex offender treatment program at the Montana State Prison.

On August 5,2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was represented by Deputy County Attorney, Mark Russell.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

The Sentence Review Division notes it was the District Court’s intent to place the defendant in Sexual Offender Treatment Program as quickly as possible. The Sentence Review Division ratifies that intent and encourages the Department of Corrections to provide treatment for the defendant as soon as possible.

Done in open Court this 5th day of August, 2010.

DATED this 13th day of August, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7745

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL O. PEARSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (4:11-cr-00098-RBSDEM-1; 4:16-cv-00132-RBS)

Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: May 24, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael O. Pearson, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael O. Pearson seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as 

untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) 

(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on 

procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a 

constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pearson has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.2

Officers Certification Pursuant to

Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(18 U.S.C 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation, (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Lorne E. Phillips, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his
knowledge:

(1) The Report is in full compliance 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.



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |                                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 5, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Lorne E. Phillips                               
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Lorne E. Phillips                                   
|                        |  |  |  |  |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
No. 786.

#### Sabin et al. *v.*Home Owners’ Loan Corporation.

February 2, 1942.

The motion to proceed on typewritten papers is granted. Petition for writ of certi*801orari to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma denied.

*Milton Roe Sabin*and *Bertha Florence Sabin, pro se. Solicitor General Fahy*for respondent.
#### Franklin Strauss et al., Respondents, v Hemda Billig, Defendant, and Third-Party Plaintiff. Castle Village Owners Corp., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Submitted December 13, 2010;

decided February 10, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2648 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2648

       To suspend temporarily the duty on motor generator units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            November 2, 2009

  Mr. Bunning introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on motor generator units.

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

SECTION 1. MOTOR GENERATOR UNITS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Motor generator     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        units with three-                                                  31/2011.......
                        phase cable
                        assembly, the
                        foregoing
                        functioning as a
                        starter motor and
                        electric motor
                        supplementing the
                        gasoline internal
                        combustion engine
                        and as a
                        generator for
                        recharging
                        vehicle batteries
                        in regenerative
                        braking mode;
                        certified by the
                        importer for use
                        in hybrid
                        electric vehicles
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        8511.40.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Skip to main content An icon that symbolizes the United States Department of Transportation logo. United States Department of Transportation
        Report a Safety Problem

  Toggle navigation
      National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationHomepage

    Ratings
                                Recalls
                                Risky Driving
                                Road Safety
                                Vehicle Safety
      
            More Info

                      Briefing Room
          
                        
            Importing a Vehicle
          
                                      
            
            Data
          
                        
            Research
          
                        
            Laws & Regulations
          
                    
                      Vehicle Manufacturers
                      State Governments
                      Enforcement & Justice Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009


Download file: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis: Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009
 NHTSA Information
              
              About NHTSA
          Careers & Internships
          Contact Us
          Recall Information
          Report a Safety ProblemInformation For
              
              Vehicle Manufacturers
          State Governments
          Enforcement & JusticeNHTSA Sites
              
        SaferCar App
          TrafficSafetyMarketing.gov
          EMS.gov
          911.gov
            Website Information
              
        Web Policies & Notices
          Accessibility
          FOIA
          Privacy Policy
          Information Quality
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
          No Fear Act Data
          Ethics
          Civil Rights
          Office of Inspector General
          OIG Hotline
          BusinessUSA
          USA.gov
          WhiteHouse.gov

            National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration
              1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
                Washington, D.C. 20590
              888-327-4236888-275-9171 (TTY)
              Twitter
                LinkedIn
                Facebook
                Youtube
                Instagram
        Submit Feedback >
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Gilbert Rigoberto, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered April 6, 2016, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of public urination and sentencing him to a fine of $125 or, in the alternative, two days in jail.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered April 6, 2016, modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the fine to $50, and otherwise affirmed.</p><p>Defendant gave his valid written consent to a trial before a Judicial Hearing Officer [JHO]. Moreover, defendant was represented by counsel who actively participated at the trial before the JHO without objection (<i>see People v Davis</i>, 13 NY3d 17, 30-31 [2009]). </p><p>Defendant's claim that the failure of the court to provide him an interpreter deprived him of the right to be present at the proceedings is unpreserved, since neither defendant nor his attorney informed the court at any time during the trial of defendant's inability to understand the English language (<i>see People v Ramos</i>, 26 NY2d 272 [1970]). We decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record demonstrates that defendant was able to speak and understand English, notwithstanding his use of an interpreter at arraignment (<a href="../2007/2007_09937.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Santos</i>, 46 AD3d 365</a> [2007], <i>lv denied </i>10 NY3d 844 [2008]).</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of public urination (<i>see</i> Administrative Code of City of NY ยง 16-118[6]) was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the trial court's determinations concerning credibility (<i>see People v Bleakley</i>, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).</p><p>We find the fine to be excessive to the extent indicated.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: March 22, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2468 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2468

     To suspend temporarily the duty on sound-isolating earphones.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mr. Cornyn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on sound-isolating earphones.

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

SECTION 1. SOUND-ISOLATING EARPHONES.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Sound-isolating     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        earphones with                                                     31/2011.......
                        multiple balanced
                        armature
                        speakers, each
                        with non-porous
                        slow-recovery
                        black foam
                        attachment
                        sleeves,
                        detachable cable,
                        and with a
                        repeatable
                        frequency
                        response of 20Hz
                        or more but not
                        over 16kHz with a
                        deviation of +/-
                        3dB (provided for
                        in subheading
                        8518.30.20)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-4.5



 





Exhibit 4.5




CERTIFICATE OF TRUST




OF




NATIONAL CITY CAPITAL TRUST VII




     THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of NATIONAL CITY CAPITAL TRUST VII (the “Trust”), dated as of November
5, 2007 is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustee, to form a statutory trust
under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act (12 Del. C. (Section) 3801 et seq.).



     1. NAME. The name of the statutory trust being formed hereby is National City Capital Trust
VII.



     2. DELAWARE TRUSTEE. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust with a
principal place of business in the State of Delaware are as follows:



The Bank of New York (Delaware)

White Clay Center, Route 273

New Castle County

Newark, Delaware 19711

Attention: Corporate Trust




     3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon filing.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustee of the Trust, has executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE)

Not in its individual capacity, but
solely as Delaware Trustee

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kristine K. Gullo	 
	 	 	Name: Kristine K. Gullo	 
	 	 	Title: Vice President
Exhibit   99.2

                            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 Westford Technology Ventures, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey T. Hamilton, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the
Partnership.



/s/      Jeffrey T. Hamilton
------------------------------------
Jeffrey T. Hamilton
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002