alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
How to Guide: Add an Agency Contact in TMS

Please contact the CJIS Audit Unit at cau@nigc.gov with any questions.

This how-to guide is intended to assist with adding a Contact Management User, who will receive 

reports based on profile permissions established by agency administrators. 

Login to https://fp.nigc.gov/

Select My Agency.

Select Contacts.
How to Guide: Add an Agency Contact in TMS

Please contact the CJIS Audit Unit at cau@nigc.gov with any questions.

Select the Agency Contacts tab and click New Contact.

Complete the required fields and scroll down to the bottom of the New Contact page to complete the 

Contact Type selections.

C
How to Guide: Add an Agency Contact in TMS

Please contact the CJIS Audit Unit at cau@nigc.gov with any questions.

Click to check the box for the desired contact type. Use the scroll bar on the right of the Contact 

Type box to view additional options. When finished, click Add.
---

---

EXHIBIT 15.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-134593, 333-148932 and
333-148933) and Form F-3 (Nos. 333-121611 and 333-149063) of our reports dated March 30,
2009, with respect to the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December
31, 2008 of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. (f/k/a LanOptics Ltd.) and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of EZchip Semiconductor Ltd. (f/k/a LanOptics
Ltd.) included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|               |                                   
|-------------- | ----------------------------------
|
|
|
|               | /s/ Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer
|Haifa, Israel  | KOST, FORER, GABBAY and KASIERER  
|March 30, 2009 | A member of Ernst & Young Global  



---

---
Order filed April 17 , 2012
.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14
- 12
- 00 359
- CV

____________ IN RE HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 165th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011
- 40738



### O R D E R

On April 16, 2012 , relator, HEB Grocery Company , filed a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann . § 22.221. Relator asks this c ourt to order The Honorable Josefina M. Rendon , Judge of the 165th District Court , Harris County, Texas, to set aside her order dated April 4 , 20 12 , entered in trial court cause number 2011

- 40738 , styled Rebecca Lara v. HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a Houston 42

- Gulfgate HEB

. Relator claims t he order is void, the trial c ourt abused its discretion in ordering discovery

. It appears from the facts stated in the petition that relator’s request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced unless immediate temporary relief i s granted. See Tex. R. App. p. 52.8(b), 52.10.2 We therefore ORDER that the April 4 , 20 12 , order of the court below be stayed with respect to those portions that require relator to produce discovery in trial court cause number 2011

- 40738 , styled Rebecca L ara v. HEB Grocery Company, LP, d/b/a Houston 42

- Gulfgate HEB . Such order is stayed until final decision by this court of relator’ s petition for writ of mandamus, or until further orders of this c ourt. A response to the petition for writ of mandamus is r equested and due within 14 days of the date of this order.

PER CURIAM
#### Cleveland Bar Association *v.*Brucato.

[Cite as *Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Brucato*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 67.]

(No. 96-2431

Submitted December 11, 1996

Decided March 26, 1997.)

*68
      *Robert J. Hanna*and *Charles B. Donahue II,*for relator.

*Richard G. Lillie,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

In *Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams*(1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 71, 73, 609 N.E.2d 149, 150, an attorney pled guilty to conspiracy to launder profits from illegal drug sales. In *Williams,*we said that “[disbarment is the only appropriate sanction,” even though the government stipulated that the defendant was the “least culpable participant in the scheme [and] rendered ‘substantial, timely, truthful and complete’ cooperation with the government and accepted responsibility for his crime.” *Id.*at 73, 609 N.E.2d at 150.

In this case, respondent’s participation was close to if not greater than the level of the attorney’s participation in *Williams.*Here, respondent was the one who arranged for the initial contact between the parties involved in the money-laundering scheme.

In addition, respondent not only failed to provide adequate representation to his client, DiFranco, but he also declined to participate in the investigatory process when informed of the charges against him.

*69Respondent has pleaded guilty to a felony, violated the Disciplinary Rules with respect to his duty to a client, and has failed to cooperate with a disciplinary investigation, thereby violating the Rules for the Government of the Bar. For these cumulative infractions the appropriate sanction is disbarment, and respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents and would indefinitely suspend respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      426
<ALLOWANCES>                                        28
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          24,942
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,633
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,424
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,633
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,905
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,461
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (125)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,018
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,018
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,018
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Ranell M. Jacobson, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Union Security Insurance Company;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;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) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered bythis report based on such evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005         /s/ Ranell M. Jacobson   Ranell M. Jacobson   Treasurer
Exhibit
32(b)








This
Certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise
subject to the liability of that section.  This Certification shall
not be incorporated by reference into any registration statement or other
document pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, except as otherwise stated in
such filing.








Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63


of Title
18 of the United States Code








In
connection with the Annual Report of Appalachian Power Company (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K (the “Report”) for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Holly Keller
Koeppel, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that, based on my knowledge (i) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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.








/s/ Holly Keller
Koeppel  _


Holly
Keller Koeppel


Chief
Financial Officer








February
28, 2008








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
American Electric Power Company, Inc. and will be retained by American Electric
Power Company, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
Dismissed; Opinion Filed October 1, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00351-CV

MELINDA LEHYE AND ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellant

V.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06692-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Osborne, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

On September 12, 2019, we notified appellant her brief was overdue and directed her to 

file, within ten days, both the brief and an extension motion in compliance with Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 10.5(b). Although we cautioned appellant that failure to file the brief and 

motion as directed would result in the appeal being dismissed, the brief has not been filed. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See id. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b),(c).

190351F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MELINDA LEHYE AND ALL 

OCCUPANTS, Appellant

No. 05-19-00351-CV V.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-06692-D.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Myers and Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee CitiMortgage, Inc. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from 

appellant Melinda Lehye and All Occupants.

Judgment entered this 1st day of October, 2019.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350(AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “Form 10-QSB”) of ApogeeTechnology, Inc. and Subsidiary for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that, to his respective knowledge:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2.                                       Theinformation contained in the Report fairly represents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  May 14, 2003 | /s/ Herbert M. Stein                                                       |   |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      | Herbert M. Stein                                                           |
|                      | Chairman of the Board, President and  Chief Executive Officer              |
|                      |
|                      |
| Dated:  May 14, 2003 | /s/ David Spiegel                                                          |   |
|                      | David Spiegel                                                              |
|                      | Treasurer (principal  financial officer  and principal accounting officer) |

 

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 21

	The seven registrants, Entergy Corporation, System Energy Resources, Inc., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., are listed below (for a list of the remaining direct and indirect subsidiaries of Entergy Corporation, with the exception of certain subsidiaries that in the aggregate would not constitute a "significant subsidiary," see Exhibit 1 to Entergy Corporation's Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 filing made in File No. 70-9123 on February 27, 2004):

  
State or OtherJurisdiction ofIncorporation
   
Entergy Corporation 
Delaware
System Energy Resources, Inc. (a) 
Arkansas
Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (a) 
Arkansas
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (a) 
Texas
Entergy Louisiana, Inc. (a) 
Louisiana
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. (a) 
Mississippi
Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (a) 
Louisiana
                       _______________________

(a)
Entergy Corporation owns all of the Common Stock of System Energy Resources, Inc., Entergy Arkansas Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
#### De Ver Warner *v.*Bassett and another.

*(Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.*

April 5, 1881.)

1. Patent No. 197,913—Improvement in Corsets—Motion for Preliminary Injunction—Consent Decree no Foundation.

A decree by consent in one circuit is not such, an adjudication of a patent as will lay the foundation for a preliminary injunction in another circuit.

*Munson & Philipp,*for plaintiff.

*Wooster é Torrance,*for defendants.

Shipman, D. J.

This is a motion for a preliminary injunction to restrain the defendants from the alleged infringement of two letters patent, each issued to the plaintiff for an improvement in corsets. The first patent was issued April 10, 1877, was surrendered, and was re-issued March 5, 1878, being No. 8,114. The other patent was issued December 4, 1877, and is No. 197,913. No adjudication has ever been had in regard to re-issue No. 8,114, and such an exhibit was shown upon the hearing that the plaintiff did not ask for a preliminary injunction under this patent. On or about December 29, 1879, the plaintiff filed his bill of complaint in the United States circuit court for the eastern district of Michigan against the Detroit Skirt & Corset Company, alleging the infringement of both patents. About January 10,1880, a motion for preliminary injunction was tried, and, after a hearing, a temporary injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from the infringement of No. 197,913. A rehearing was allowed on motion of the defendants, and the injunction was again ordered to issue. A settlement was afterwards made, and a consent decree was entered against the defendants.

This is not such an adjudication upon the patent as, in my opinion, should lay the foundation for a preliminary injunction in another circuit. It was a hearing upon affidavits, and although the learned court came to a deliberate conclusion, which was adhered to upon re-examination, the *469adjudication is not equivalent to one rendered upon final hearing.

The principal reliance of the plaintiff for an injunction is upon the acquiescence of the public in the validity of the patent. It has been in existence about three years, and during that time the patentee says he has sold over 600,000 pairs of corsets made in conformity with the patent’s description of the invention, and that no infringements have taken place except such as have been abandoned by agreement. The life of the patent has not been long, but the sales have certainly been very large, and indicate that the article is very popular, and it seems that its success would naturally have invited imitators. But in the absence of an adjudication made after full investigation of the art and final healing, I am very loth to grant an injunction, because, although this patent may have heretofore been respected, out of the multitude of different styles of corsets which have been worn it would be not unlikely that it should hereafter be ascertained that some manufacturer had made and sold a style which anticipated the patented article. It would be, in my opinion, an unwise exercise of authority to issue a temporary injunction in this case.

The motion is denied.
of business unit results, such as shareholder value creation, customer service,financial strength, operating performance, safety, and the Chief Executive Officer’s assessment ofthe officer’s individual performance during the year, to measure performance. Subject to theforegoing, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Edington and Mr. Wheeler each has an award opportunity of up to 25% ofhis base salary if the midpoint earnings level is met and up to 50% of his base salary if themaximum earnings level is met.     In the case of Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Edington and Mr. Wheeler, the APS Incentive Plan details“critical success indicators” for specific business units. Once an APS earnings threshold is met,the Committee will consider the achievement of the critical success indicators, which the Committeemay weigh as it deems appropriate in determining an incentive opportunity for each individual up to50% of his base salary. In the case of Mr. Hatfield, the Committee will consider the following keycritical success indicators in the Shared Services business unit: (i) the average of the Fossilbusiness unit results (safety performance, environmental performance and production) and the PaloVerde business unit results (safety performance; performance improvement in other key areas, suchas equipment reliability and plant metrics; production, including site capacity factor and outagedurations; and financial performance); (ii) the Customer Service, Delivery and Regulatory businessunit results (safety performance, customer experience survey, business performance trends, customerreliability, and environmental performance); (iii) shared services costs; and (iv) shared servicessafety. In the case of Mr. Edington, the Committee will consider the following key criticalsuccess indicators in the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station business unit: safety performance;performance improvement in other key areas, such as equipment reliability and plant metrics;production, including site capacity factor and outage durations; and financial performance. In thecase of Mr. Wheeler, the Committee will consider the following key critical success indicators inthe Customer Service, Delivery, and Regulatory business unit: safety performance; customerexperience survey; business performance trends; customer reliability; and environmentalperformance.