alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 7, 2021

NO. 03

- 20

- 00406

- CV

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas; and

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas , Appellant s

v.

Texas W e stmoreland Coal Co. , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES BAKER AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on June 17, 202 0

. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

judgm ent

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant s shall pay all costs

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Gary White, Appellant.

Submitted May 20, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

Motion for reargument denied *[see*10 NY3d 286 (2008)].

Judges Rivera and Abdus-Salaam taking no part.
CERTIFICATE OF RESOLUTION

I do hereby certify that at a meeting of the Board of Directors of The Gold
Ore Mining Company held at 10:00 A.M.,  Friday April 12, 1968, at which a
quorum was present and voting throughout, the following resolution, upon
motion made, seconded and carried, was fully adopted as the action of the
Board and has not subsequently been modified or rescinded, or in any way
restricted and is now in full force and effect:

RESOLVED, that this corporation accept the proposal made by the Bagdad
Chase Mining Company in its letter of intent dated April 5, 1968, to
acquire the assets of this corporation in exchange for 790,040 shares of
Bagdad Chase, Inc.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the corporation this 23rd day of July, 1968.

Secretary
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 14 (Friday, January 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4146]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1452]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Intent to Grant Partially Exclusive License; Sigma 
Technologies International

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy gives notice of its intent to grant 
Sigma Technologies International a revocable, nonassignable, partially 
exclusive license, with exclusive field of use in passivation of 
aluminum flake pigments that have a flake thickness of 5 nm to 2 micron 
and an area of 10 nm to 500 microns in diameter, in the United States 
to practice the Government-owned invention, U.S. Patent 7,193,649 
entitled ``Passivation Layer on Aluminum Surface and Method Thereof.''

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file 
written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later 
than February 20, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be filed with Indian Head 
Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Code CAB, Suite 107, 1st floor, 
3824 Strauss Avenue, Indian Head, MD 20640-5152.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. J. Scott Deiter, Head, Technology 
Transfer Office, Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Division, 
Code CAB, 3824 Strauss Avenue, Indian Head, MD 20640-5035, telephone: 
301-744-6111.

    Dated: January 15, 2009.
A.M. Vallandingham,
Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, 
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-1452 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
* 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 December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-50715 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE ALBERTO CECENA-VERELA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:04-CR-2390-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jorge Alberto Cecena-Verela raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

JUAN MARQUIS HOLIDAY, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-50157 

D.C. No. 

3:17-cr-01370-AJB-1 

ORDER

On Remand from the United States Supreme Court

Before: M. SMITH and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and STEELE,* District Judge.

Order

* The Honorable John E. Steele, United States District Judge for the 

Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.

FILED

NOV 22 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

SUMMARY**

Criminal Law

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, which vacated this court’s 

decision reported at 998 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2020), the panel reversed the district 

court’s judgment on Counts Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen; affirmed in all 

other respects for the reasons explained in the opinion reported at 998 F.3d 888; 

and remanded to the district court for resentencing consistent with United States v. 

Taylor, 142 S. Ct. 2015 (2022).

ORDER

The decision entered in this matter, reported at 998 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2020), 

was vacated by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Holiday v. United 

States, 142 S. Ct. 2857 (2022). Accordingly, we now REVERSE the district 

court’s judgment on Counts Seventeen, Eighteen, and Nineteen. We AFFIRM in 

all other respects for the reasons explained in our opinion reported at 998 F.3d 888. 

We REMAND to the district court for resentencing consistent with United States v. 

Taylor, 142 S.Ct. 2015 (2022).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has 

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
# Contracts

The Research and Development Contracts mechanism is one of several vehicles used by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institute of Health (NIH) to support research and research related activities.

## What is a research contract?

A research contract is a legal instrument that is used to reflect a relationship between the Federal Government and a contractor whenever the principal purpose of the transaction is to acquire goods or services for the direct benefit or use for the Government, for example; to support research in areas of significant scientific interest, to further scientific knowledge, or to achieve a specific research goal.

## What is the review process?

Research contract requirements are concept reviewed by the National Advisory Mental Health Council. Research contract proposals are peer reviewed, and are awarded to universities, non-profit organizations, and profit making organizations involved in mental health research.

## How are opportunities announced?

NIMH announces contract opportunities at Sam.gov ** and the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts **.

## Current opportunities (RFPs)?

                  - NIMH Toxicological Evaluation of Novel Ligands Program **

## How does a contract differ from other funding mechanisms?

A research contract differs from a grant or cooperative agreement in a number of aspects that are designed to comply with provisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). These differences include the manner used to solicit and negotiate the requirement, the level of Government participation during contract performance, and the control of study results.

NIMH research contract solicitations normally result in one award. However, certain solicitations may specify that multiple awards are anticipated. In either case, the NIMH's goal is to award contracts to organizations capable of performing top quality research in the most cost effective and cost efficient manner possible.

## Whom do I contact about NIMH research contracts?

Please contact the Contracting Officer if you have any questions regarding individual Requests for Proposals.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,387
<SECURITIES>                                 1,199,865
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,222,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           21,886
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,200,266
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,222,152
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,588
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,588
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,588
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,588
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Michael R. Kramer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ATS Medical, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of material fact oromit 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 the periodcovered by this report;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 ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d- 15(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparationof financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors; a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: May 9, 2007         /s/ Michael R. Kramer       Name: Michael R. Kramer  Title: Acting Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Mitchel D.G., Appellant, v Interfaith Medical Center et al., Respondents.

Submitted June 3, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

*1001Motion to dismiss appeal granted and appeal dismissed, without costs, on the ground that relator has been released and, therefore, his liberty is no longer restrained to such a degree as to entitle him to the extraordinary writ of habeas corpus *(see*CPLR 7002 [a]; *see also People ex rel. Wilder v Markley,*26 NY2d 648 [1970]).
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Hilbert Stanley, Appellant.

Submitted June 4, 2012;

decided June 26, 2012

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Steven Banks, Esq., the Legal Aid Society, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
# NIH Research Matters
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

KELLY DUTTON,

Petitioner

v.

VIRGINA COLEMAN AND WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 414 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of February, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
EXHIBIT
      32.1





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 the quarterly report of Web2 Corp (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William Mobley, Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, 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
                Company.







/s/
      William Mobley





William
      Mobley


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      17,
      2007




A
      signed
      original of this certification has been provided to the Company and will be
      retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 99.1

                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections
(a) and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  the
undersigned  officer  of ASI  Technology  Corporation  (the  "Company"),  in his
capacity and as of the date set forth below, does hereby certify with respect to
the  Annual  Report of the  Company on Form  10-KSB  for the  fiscal  year ended
December  31, 2002 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  (the
"10-KSB Report") that to his knowledge:

         (1) the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in
all material respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated:  March 12, 2003


                                                /s/ JERRY E. POLIS
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                                Jerry E. Polis, President of
                                                ASI Technology Corporation
Exhibit 4.1


 




	
  

  	
  INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE FULLY PAID
  AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PAR VALUE, OF
  HMS Holdings Corp. transferable on the books of the Corporation by said owner
  in person, or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate
  properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented hereby are
  subject to all of the terms, conditions and limitations of the Certificate of
  Incorporation and all amendments thereto and supplements thereof. This
  Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and
  registered by the Registrar. WITNESS the facsimile seal of the Corporation
  and the facsimile signatures of the Corporation’s duly authorized officers.
  Dated:
iion.,D. 0. Oreo, pmge 3 

In 4 Oar. Jur., p. 53.7, uad 17 C.J.S., p. 679 et 

seq. it 3.8 maid: 

“Where an agreeaent lm l8wfu$ oa it.8 fmae, 

or is aapablr of belong executed in a lartul my, 

and the intention of one of the mica is that 

it be 80 exeautiid he 18 mtltled to enfaree It 

notwlthmtandlng the other party intended 8a lllegal l bt, it ths fLr8t por8on v88 uaavare of. 

the illegal Intention. . . .” 

84lQ 1 

III mixhell VB. porter, 191 s. Y. 981, p. 986, %tia 

" Rovever, it hma been held that 8 

~t7;04~inv~d5ank#t,vhi~i8 aotlllegd 

a@ unlawful, may be aqultabXg emteppe& to &spite 

the rflldlty er the aantrwt. 

In'10 9!&. air., p* bg, it 3.8 m&d: 

:,gl$~ i :, .?. : 

made, for the partlois aE0 pnsumed to k.wv the 

IBV. . -. i" 

I Am to the’alrtake mmde 

authorltle8 gonerally to be a8 i. 0% oe8luappurJwefllwlt~ ov8: 

'Wllllmtan on Ooalxautm, Rev. Pd., Vol. 5;.+& 4414, 

oeoi 1580, et seq., it 18 Said: 

"The l aeprlnalpkthetpmhibit~ reeorrrp 

of-7 

GY 

8fterthedef~th88~ 

him posit maces it clo8r that lfll8toTeP eqult7 

thisren8ybekfaiaroror~eaewhohamma&uluallnteral mistake la the focwtion ot a ~9..8&0$ 

ooatraot, the effecrtof lt lo em 

gherehere~ 

l 

trretloat1488t~ wholly UuOutca~. 

PIP pro mo ed l& h 6 o ea tmt 

< r 8 OF 

a a n b m no r elief, . . . . lunderwxmng .up&b 

In stat0 vs. seholcRro8., 4 s. w. (241 661, 66% it 

18 said: 
Ron. D. D. finer, pege 4 

ABrH;rr 

”
#### In the Matter of Michael Thompson, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

Submitted July 30, 2012;

decided September 6, 2012

Motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 27, 2012 dismissal order denied *[see*19 NY3d 941 (2012)].
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 Annual Report of Atwood Oceanics, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James M. Holland,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:

    (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 results of
         operations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented.



Date:    December 13, 2006                         /s/ JAMES M. HOLLAND
                                                   James M. Holland
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
# WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
THE PRESIDENT ANDCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SS.1350

Solely
for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, I, the undersigned President and
Chief Executive Officer of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. (the Company), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
year ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
the Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.

|                                | 
|------------------------------- | 
|/s/  Ronald E. Swanson          | 
|Ronald E. SwansonMarch 31, 2005 |
#### In the Matter of the Board of Managers of French Oaks Condominium, Respondent, v Town of Amherst et al., Appellants, and Williamsville Central School District, Intervenor-Respondent.

Submitted April 22, 2013;

decided June 6, 2013

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.
EXHIBIT 32(a)

Certification

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of The Bank of New York Company,
Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 22, 2007



/s/ Thomas A. RenyiName: Thomas A. RenyiTitle: Chief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not
being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.