alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
April Drake 

Sincerely, 

your office. 

to prepare and file the original Reporter's Record with 

At this time, I have received no payment in order for me 

for my portions of the record. 

Downey in writing the bill of cost for the preparation 

above-styled cause. Yesterday, the 16th, I sent Mr. 

the reporter's record be filed with the COA in the 

office of James Mosser, sent by Paul Downey, requesting 

On July 15, 2015, I received written notice from the law 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Bob Mims 

03-15-00365-CV, James C. Mosser and Mosser Law PLLC vs. 

Re: Trial Court Number C-13-0102-C; COA No. 

Austin, Texas 78711 

209 W. 14th, Room 101 

P.O. Box 12547 

Court of Appeals, Third District 

Hon. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk 

July 17, 2015 

(214) 621-7245

(325) 659-6575

San Angelo, Texas 76903

112 West Beauregard

340th Judicial District

Associate Court Reporter

APRIL DRAKE
@article{105371,
  author = {Christopher Szakal and John Gillen},
  title = {Fundamentals and Applications of Cluster SIMS},
  year = {2007},
  month = {2007-01-01},
  publisher = {European Journal of Mass Spectrometry},
  language = {en},
}
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Maria L. Bouvette, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                      |  |                        
|------------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                         |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                         |  |                     
|Dated: November 12, 2010 |  | By:                  |  | /s/ Maria L. Bouvette  
|                         |  |                      |  | Maria L. Bouvette      
|                         |  |                      |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 24, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 29998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14993]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721


Significant New Uses of Chemical Substances

CFR Correction

    In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 700 to 789, 
revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 431, after the source note for 
Sec.  721.8940 and before paragraph (a), reinstate the heading for 
Sec.  721.8950 to read as follows:


Sec.  721.8950  Chromate(3-), bis[3-[[6-amino-1,4-dihydro-2-[[[4-[(2-
hydroxy-1-naphthalenyl)azo] phenyl]sulfonyl]amino]-4-(oxo-.kappa.O)-5-
pyrimidinyl]azo-.kappaN1]-4-hydroxy-.kappa.O)-5-
nitrobenzenesulfonato(3-)]-, sodium triethanolamine salts.


[FR Doc. E9-14993 Filed 6-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 32.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Porter
Bancorp, Inc. (the Company) for the annual period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David B. Pierce, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, do hereby certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |                     |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -------------------- |  | ------------------- |  | -----------------------
|                      |  |  |  | PORTER BANCORP, INC.
|                      |  |  | 
|Dated: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | By:                  |  | /s/ David B. Pierce
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |                     |  | David B. Pierce        
|                      |  |  |  |                      |  |                     |  | Chief Financial Officer
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF FANNIN COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 24th 

day of April, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

David Eugene Rivard, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-15-00011-CV

Trial Court Nos. 47,493; 47,676

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We note that the appellant, David Eugene Rivard, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 17th day of July, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
**Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Larry Altringer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Agassiz Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 the periodcovered by this quarterly report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly 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 this quarterlyreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 quarterly reportis being prepared;b) 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 such evaluation;andc) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. 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 the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):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; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:November 27, 2006                                        /s/ Larry Altringer   Larry Altringer   Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, by Andrew M. Cuomo, Respondent, v Maurice R. Greenberg et al., Appellants.

Submitted February 11, 2013;

decided February 14, 2013

Motion by Chamber of Commerce of the United States 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 nine copies filed within seven days.

Chief Judge Lippman taking no part.
•• RECEIVED ' COURT OF CRURAL APPEALS

•777*.V L: ao^~ JUL 102015

-^—. ' ~ — . '.' AbeSAcuta,Clerk

A3I^_AC£S7/q

QiyiT<LQ?lc

-Co wr n= aa^j^UM^^m^A.

p.p. ftra /aaog j '<j\eTKX-£j&n&aL±-

ATOX3, 7EE*ftS 7g?flL ,

t: / TtfjRrcAilfx j ftp <:HAi^g~ £r aDTaggt ;

CE^vi /4^L^Aa/z ArrrrA,

Of 3 TCP/ 2 , ^Q/6" X UAK 77/Afi&/??flsrS' 7lV TM£ \&M$E>f3

(J4JTT XM fcOSMAEQQ, TgjcftS , AOliUtt l£S AS RXlfUEti ) '.

ftgi/AT £. \/Af?A • i__

>j&„ IUTLQ/L4'

I 3QO FA1 ISS" £o/.

KnSd/Mytti, T£^ 773183

•r' •. .

I -
fU&F& 'Aurtpy a=no tt&CJFfpi of ct-^nCsO. op A^O^cc.

nnsfipcTFiifv,

-

ftFU47 /? »/>Q£4

s

•

• ' '

: •' . • .• - • •

-.•'' , * ' • '

'•

~~ • ' • •

, .-.••'

,

'

• - c

• ^ • '

.

-

_•

~ - - • .

j

) '

; ' r7 ^'.'' ^'}'0'iV 'v

• •* v '.' >'!>'i

-£-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Rudge, Also Known as Frank Ridge, Appellant.

[975 NYS2d 674]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Adler, J.), rendered March 21, 2011, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of menacing in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of four months, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant never moved to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, his challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (see *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]). The narrow exception to the preservation rule is not applicable because nothing in the plea allocution casts doubt on defendant’s guilt *(see id.).*In any event, nothing in the record shows the plea was not voluntarily made or that defendant did not understand the consequences of the plea. Concur— Tom, J.P, Saxe, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 118 (Monday, June 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29516-29517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Preservation Technology and Training Board Charter Renewal

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Committee Renewal.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with Section 9(a) of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. Appendix). 
Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice 
is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior has formally renewed 
the Preservation Technology and Training Board to provide advice and 
professional oversight to the Secretary and the National Center for 
Preservation

[[Page 29517]]

Technology and Training, as authorized by Title IV, Section 404 of 
Public Law 102-575, October 30, 1992. The specific duties of the Board 
are to (1) provide leadership, policy advice, and professional 
oversight to the Center; (2) advise the Secretary on priorities and the 
allocation of grants among the activities of the Center; and (3) submit 
an annual report to the President and the Congress.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk Cordell, Executive Director, 
National Center for Preservation Technology and Training, National Park 
Service, 645 College Avenue, Natchitoches, Louisiana 71457, (318) 356-
7444.

    Dated: June 3, 2009.
Ken Salazar,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E9-14590 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
**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 LILM, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, **George I. Norman, III**, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer            of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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/ | **GEORGEI.NORMAN,III** |
|-----|------------------------|

 

**George I. Norman, III**

Chief Executive Officer

Principal Accounting Officer

May __, 2010

 

 

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 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely 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) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### McLAUGHLIN v. CURTIS PUB. CO. et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

Aug. 4, 1943.

Howard A. Newman, of New York City, for plaintiff.

CravatH, Swaine & Moore, of New York City, for defendant.

BRIGHT, District Judge.

Plaintiff’s motion to strike out the first, third and fourth defenses is denied. Even if plaintiff had not withdrawn so much of his motion as relates to the first defense, I still think it is entirely unnecessary to plead such a defense that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendants say that they believe it is necessary to set it out in their answer because of Rule 12(b) (g) (h), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, contending that if not pleaded, it is waived. The failure of a complaint to state a claim makes it vulnerable at any stage of the action, and a motion for its dismissal upon such ground can be made, in my opinion, at any time, before or after pleading, or upon the trial. I think this conclusion necessarily so from that portion of Rule 12(h) in which is stated that a party waives all defenses not presented except “that the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * * may also be made * * * by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at the trial on the merits.”

 The second defense, consisting as it does of denials and admissions, is not a defense. Denials never were and are not now defenses. The third defense of fair comment attempts to allege facts which as fair comment may or may not justify the statements in the criticized article of which plaintiff complains. Whether the proof will be sufficient for that purpose is reserved for the trial. There is enough alleged in my opinion to present the question. The same may be said of the fourth defense of justification, incorporating as it does most of the allegations of the third defense. Personally, I cannot see how the additional matter pleaded in paragraphs 42 to 44 inclusive, is proper, but whether admissible is also a question for the trial court.
* 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 8, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40030

KYLE I. AHART, individually and as Next Friend for His Minor Child AHART, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOE VICKERY, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Investigator HARDIN COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ED CAIN, Individually and in his Official Capacity as HARDIN COUNTY SHERIFF, and HARDIN COUNTY, TEXAS, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (USDC No. 1:01-CV-628)

_______________________________________________________ Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ahart’s Rule 60(b)(3)2

motion for relief from judgment. Appellees failure to disclose Officer Vickery’s prior conviction did not prevent Ahart from fully and fairly presenting his case. See Gov’t Fin. Servs. One Ltd. P’ship v. Peyton Place , 62 F.3d 767, 772 (5 th Cir. 1995). The conviction was easily discoverable, and Ahart failed to respond to the Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. AFFIRMED.
· .. 

J A9 E:~d /,o 100 D.>hft( :rs Tl+c.. Cou.A/6 Orsfl o.s£l.Zc:yu 

o r'l Ii-i£- CJ RrT tJ,F m ttt0 tJ flrrJ u..:s 6-U;_cf_ oN & jt 8) f 5 

-. -- .. ·-

:L IN ArJ k_ YoGL ro,<_ Yo t(,€_ -r: me ON TH.:rs 

RES p £ clrv._LL )' S u. b mfttEcf/ 

~~1,.}~~ RECEIVEDIN 

/J {) rV r-1 L 0 [i.)fl f"')f:: ~~~ .0)tf'i"S 311S 3 l:fURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

(Yl c_ c () 1\) 1\.) £!_ LL Lt N.r/ JUL 16 2015 

38 o J .SoL).._.-ri> ef?"'r ..rL; O;<.rve:. Abe!Acosta,Cierl{ 

8£E-V.fLL~/ &~-781-o~ 

l)r~J;s
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 6 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

MARCOS ALONZO DE LA CRUZ,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DONALD A. DORSEY, Warden and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 96-2116

(D.C. No. CIV-94-30-HB)

(District of New Mexico)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA, HENRY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

Upon careful consideration of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

district court’s order, and the applicable law, we AFFIRM for substantially the

reasons stated in the district court’s order.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Carlos F. Lucero

Circuit Judge
Exhibit 11**SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE**                 2005 2004 2003BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE            Net income $15,009,544  $12,718,220  $15,307,893                   Divide by:Weighted average shares outstanding  13,131,530   13,481,397   13,438,007                   Basic earnings per share $1.14  $0.94  $1.14                   DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE            Net income $15,009,544  $12,718,220  $15,307,893                   Divide by:Weighted average shares outstanding  13,131,530   13,481,397   13,438,007  Potentially dilutive effect of stock options  44,244   49,827   78,693      Weighted average shares outstanding,including potentially dilutive effect ofstock options  13,175,774   13,531,224   13,516,700                   Diluted earnings per share $1.14  $0.94  $1.13
Exhibit10.37

June 15, 2005

John W. Henry & Company, Inc.301 Yamato Road, Suite 2200 Boca Raton, Fl. 33431-4931

Attn:Mr. Ken Webster

Re: Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Webster:

We are writing with respect to yourmanagement agreements concerning the commodity pools to which referenceis made below (the "Management Agreements").We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30,2006 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remainunchanged.

|              |                               |
|--------------|-------------------------------|
| •  | Shearson Mid-WestFutures Fund |

|              |                                                 |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| •  | Shearson LehmanSelect Advisors Futures FundL.P. |

|              |                                           |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------|
| •  | Smith Barney Mid-WestFutures Fund L.P. II |

|              |                                        |
|--------------|----------------------------------------|
| •  | SmithBarney Westport Futures Fund L.P. |

|              |                                                 |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------|
| •  | Hutton Investors Futures Fund,L.P. II (HIFF II) |

|              |            |
|--------------|------------|
| •  | AURORA2001 |

|              |           |
|--------------|-----------|
| •  | AURORAIII |

|              |                                                       |
|--------------|-------------------------------------------------------|
| •  | Salomon Smith BarneyDiversified 2000 Futures FundL.P. |

|              |          |
|--------------|----------|
| •  | Alera100 |

|              |                                         |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------|
| •  | JWH Strategic AllocationMaster Fund LLC |

|              |                                   |
|--------------|-----------------------------------|
| •  | CitigroupDiversified Futures Fund |

Please acknowledge receipt of thismodification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to theattention of Mr. Daniel McAuliffe at the address above or fax to212-793-1986. If you have any questions I can be reached at212-559-5043.

Very truly yours,

CITIGROUP MANAGED FUTURESLLC

By:    /s/ Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.

Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr. ChiefFinancial Officer & Director

JOHN W. HENRY & COMPANY,INC.

By:    /s/ Ken Webster

PrintName:    Ken Webster

DRMcA/sr

----
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 16, 2015

No. 04-15-00232-CR

David Diaz DIAZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR3519

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due August 3, 2015. 

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court