alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JPMorgan Chase Bank, 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 10, 2015

No. 04-14-00342-CV

Richard A. RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CI-12923

Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The court has considered the Appellant's Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion 

is DENIED.

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
@article{107141,
  author = {John Schlager and Kristine Bertness and Paul Blanchard and Lawrence Robins and Alexana Roshko and Norman Sanford},
  title = {Steady-state and time-resolved photoluminescence from relaxed and strained GaN nanowires grown by catalyst-free molecular-beam epitaxy},
  year = {2008},
  number = {103},
  month = {2008-06-24},
  publisher = {Journal of Applied Physics},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=32785},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF

                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Quentin T. Kelly certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report of WorldWater Corp. on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December
31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operation of WorldWater Corp.

By:     /s/ Quentin T. Kelly
       ---------------------
NAME:  QUENTIN T. KELLY

Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board

Dated: June 15, 2004

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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-KSB pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent
required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"). Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 16, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00588-CR

NO. 14-14-00590-CR

TRYMAINE HOLLINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1366598 and 1366599

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals his convictions for sexual assault of a child under the age 

of 17. The jury sentenced appellant to confinement for six years in each case. The 

trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Appellant’s appointed 

counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal in each case is wholly 

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by advancing frivolous contentions which might 
2

arguably support the appeal. See Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Currie v. 

State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, no pro se 

response has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief in each case and 

agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no 

reversible error in the record in each case. We are not to address the merits of each 

claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined 

there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 

827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed in each case.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Brown and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: JUAN CARLOS BERMUDEZ,

 Relator.

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00200-CV

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF

MANDAMUS

DISSENTING OPINION

I respectfully dissent from the opinion and judgment denying the motion to stay and 

refusing to grant mandamus relief. The mandamus petition and record present a serious question 

whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to withdraw the deemed admissions 

which will operate to preclude Relator’s claim for reimbursement. Requests for admissions are 

intended to be used to eliminate matters about which there is no real controversy and were never 

intended to be used as a demand upon a plaintiff or defendant to admit that he had no cause of 

action or ground of defense. Soto v. General Foam & Plastics Corporation, 458 S.W.3d 78, 83 

(Tex.App.--El Paso 2014, no pet.). Absent bad faith or callous disregard for the rules, due 

process bars merits-preclusive sanctions. Id. I would grant the motion to stay and hear the 

mandamus petition on the merits.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

July 9, 2015

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 358 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 358

To ensure the safety of members of the United States Armed Forces while 
     using expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and equipment 
         supporting United States military operations overseas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 30, 2009

Mr. Cornyn (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Pryor, and Mrs. McCaskill) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To ensure the safety of members of the United States Armed Forces while 
     using expeditionary facilities, infrastructure, and equipment 
         supporting United States military operations overseas.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Safe Facilities and 
Equipment for American Troops Overseas Act''.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATION OF SAFETY OF EXPEDITIONARY FACILITIES, 
              INFRASTRUCTURE, AND EQUIPMENT SUPPORTING UNITED STATES 
              MILITARY OPERATIONS OVERSEAS.

    (a) Certification Required.--In order to ensure the safe 
utilization by the Armed Forces of expeditionary facilities, 
infrastructure, and equipment supporting United States military 
operations overseas, the Secretary of Defense shall certify to the 
congressional defense committees, by not later than 60 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, that each of the following actions 
have been accomplished:
            (1) That generally accepted industry standards for the 
        safety of personnel are incorporated into military regulations 
        establishing requirements for facilities, infrastructure, and 
        equipment, including standards with respect to fire protection 
        and structural integrity, and standards with respect to 
        electrical systems, water treatment, and telecommunication 
        networks.
            (2) That each contract or task or delivery order carried 
        out for the construction, installation, repair, maintenance, or 
        operation of expeditionary facilities for the Armed Forces 
        overseas incorporates generally accepted industry standards for 
        the safety of personnel utilizing such facilities.
            (3) That the standards required under paragraphs (1) and 
        (2) apply in all current and future United States military 
        operations overseas.
    (b) Congressional Defense Committees Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``congressional defense committees'' has the meaning given that 
term in section 101(a)(16) of title 10, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1


                                EXHIBIT 22 (a)

                                 SUBSIDIARIES

                                      OF

                        MINUTEMAN INTERNATIONAL, INC.



Multi-Clean Division of Minuteman International, Inc.
600 Cardigan Road
Shoreview, Minnesota  55126

Minuteman Canada, Inc.
2210 Drew Road
Mississauga
Ontario L5S 1B1 Canada

Minuteman International Foreign Sales Corporation
c/o Ernst & Young Services, Ltd.
P.O. Box 261 Bay Street
Bridgetown, Barbados

Minuteman European B.V.
Haverstraat 31
2153 GB Nieuw-Vennep
The Netherlands


















                                      
                                      17
Exhibit 23.1  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accountant


To the Board of Directors


Northeast Bancorp


Lewiston, Maine





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-85206), (No. 33-32095), (No. 33-58538), (No. 33-32096), (No. 33-87976) and (No. 333-135452) of Northeast Bancorp of our report dated September 18, 2009, related to our audit of the consolidated financial statements of Northeast Bancorp and Subsidiary
included in the Annual Report Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009.





West Peabody, Massachusetts                                                              /s/SHATSWELL,
MacLEOD & Company, P.C.


September 23, 2009                                                                                     SHATSWELL,
MacLEOD & Company, P.C.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-5931

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus JEROME WALDEN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CR-95-63) Submitted: July 25, 1996 Decided: August 14, 1996 Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory William Franklin, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, David John Novak, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Jerome Walden seeks to appeal his sentence of 210 months imprisonment. Walden pled guilty to possession of more than 50 grams of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West1981 & Supp. 1996). He argues that the district court erred in refusing to depart below the guideline range on two grounds. Because Walden expressly waived his right to appeal his sentence in his plea agreement, we dismiss the appeal. Paragraph Five of Walden's plea agreement stated: The defendant is aware that Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 affords a defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed. Acknowledging all this, the defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal any sentence within the maximum provided in the statute(s) of conviction (or the manner in which that sentence was determined) on thegrounds set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742 or on any ground whatever, in exchange for theconcessions made by the United States in this plea agreement. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742(b). Before accepting Walden's guilty plea, the district court inquired of Walden whether he understood the key provisions of his plea agreement, including the waiver provision. Walden said he did. There is nothing in the materials before us to indicate that he did not comprehend the significance of the waiver. A defendant may waive his statutory right to appeal his sentence if the waiver is knowing and voluntary. United States v. Marin , 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir. 1992). We find that Walden's waiver was valid. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 
 I, Robert C.J. van Mourik, Chief Financial Officer of AmerAlia, Inc., certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of AmerAlia, Inc.;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
 
 c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
 
 b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and
 
 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
 
 Date: October 13, 2004
 
 
 
 /s/ Robert C.J. van Mourik________________
 Robert C.J. van Mourik, Chief Financial Officer
 (principal financial officer)
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 Annual Report of Black Hills Power, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Emery, Chairman, President and 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 results of operations of the Company.

 

 

| Date:  March 21, 2008 |                        |
|-----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                  |                        |
|                  | /s/ David R. Emery          |
|                  | David R. Emery              |
|                  | Chairman, President and     |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                  | and acting interim          |
|                  | Principal Financial Officer |
#### UNITED STATES v. HUMBOLDT LOVELOCK IRR. LIGHT & POWER CO. (PERSHING COUNTY WATER CONSERVATION DIST. OF NEVADA et al., Interveners).

No. H-190.

District Court, D. Nevada.

Feb. 21, 1939.

See, also, 19 F.Supp. 489.

Roy W. Stoddard, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., and Miles N. Pike, U. S. Atty., of Reno, Nev., for plaintiff.

Hawkins, Mayotte & Hawkins, of Reno, Nev., for defendant.

H. R. Cooke, of Reno, Nev., and John A. Jurgenson, of Lovelock, Nev., for interveners.

NORCROSS, District Judge.

To plaintiff’s Bill of Complaint, defendant filed a pleading designated: “Answer and Counter-claim.” To the latter pleading plaintiff filed a motion designated: “Motion to Dismiss Defendant’s CounterClaim.”

The subject matter of the suit is water rights in the Humboldt River purchased by plaintiff from certain landowners having water rights in said river for the irrigation of certain lands in Lander County and the transfer of said rights down the course of the river for use upon lands within the Pershing County Conservation District. The water in question before reaching the Conservation District must pass head gates of certain canals used by defendant for the purpose of diverting water for temporary storage in its reservoirs. The complaint of plaintiff prays for decree requiring return of certain water allegedly unlawfully taken by defendant and for other relief. Defendant by its answer and counter-claim sets up conflicting rights in the. waters of said river to rights alleged by plaintiff.

The pleading designated — “Answer and: Counter-Claim” — concludes: “Wherefore,, defendant, having fully answered, prays

Then follows seven paragraphs, specifying different forms of relief to be provided for by decree, five of which are-based in whole or in part upon the counter-claim. The main contention in support of the motion to dismiss relates to the-sixth paragraph praying for judgment “to. the extent of $10,000, — and no more” for the reasonable value of waters alleged “to. have been inequitably had and received by the plaintiff.” We need not now determine-whether defendant could receive a money judgment against plaintiff. The mere fact, if it be a fact, that defendant by its. *335counter-claim is praying for a relief which it could not legally obtain a judgment for as against the plaintiff, would not warrant a dismissal of the counter-claim, where ■other forms of relief prayed for may not be subject to such an objection. Other forms of relief prayed for have their basis in allegations of rights to divert certain ■of the waters of Humboldt River for storage and later to be diverted for irrigation purposes. The rights of the respective parties as alleged, in certain particulars, are in conflict. If defendant may establish its allegations, it cannot be said .as a matter of law that it is not entitled to some of the relief prayed for.

The motion to dismiss should be denied.

It is so ordered.
H. Res. 492 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

July 17, 2019. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 582) to 

provide for increases in the Federal minimum wage, and for 

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 

Labor now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 

printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 

accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. 

The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 

of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 

thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 

Education and Labor; (2) the further amendment printed in 

part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered 
2 

•HRES 492 EH 

by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in 

order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time 

specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 

proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

Attest: 

Clerk.