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

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 19, 2023

NO. 03-21-00420-CV

Rosa Santis, Appellant

v.

Together We Rise Corporation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 27, 2021. Having reviewed 

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

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. The appellant 

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Exhibit 32.2

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

The undersigned, Michael J. Threet, is the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Silver State Bancorp (the
Company).

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filing by the Company of the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 (the Report).

By execution of this statement, I certify
that:



| | (A) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods covered by the Report.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                 |  |                      
|---------------- |  | ---------------------
|November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Michael J. Threet
|Dated            |  | Michael J. Threet
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32010-32011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15715]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11798 and <greek-i>11799]


Kansas Disaster <greek-i> KS-00034

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 32011]]

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA--
1848--DR), dated 06/24/2009.
    Incident: Severe Winter Storm and Record and Near Record Snow.
    Incident Period: 03/26/2009 through 03/29/2009.

DATES: Effective Date: 06/24/2009.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/24/2009.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 03/24/2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 06/24/2009, Private Non-
Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental 
nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above 
or other locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Butler, Chase, Chautauqua, Coffey, Cowley, Dickinson, 
Elk, Grant, Greenwood, Harvey, Lyon, Marion, Sumner, Woodson.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit             4.500
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit             4.000
 Available Elsewhere:........................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 11798B 
and for economic injury is 11799B

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15715 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
aampaaratdd ior tih6 full 

tkdP OUZ%'tnt OOIltl?&i8? 

(I " 

. . l . 

Tk iil a ?6-a r 2~o ln6nt 
l . . . . ~~~t8Ofth188~~UlsnPlOJW Of UI ilUtitUth l rYWd hOl”dll for 8UWbO8 

durirg a I- rerrion 8h8ll not exawd the 8al8z’y 

ratepaidfbc~by’OefOI’~#a#OP8~b3’ 

80ni0*8 dLUQ.Ug tbo 10~ fO8~iolr Or that imtitUtiars. ” 

&w&w rtatedbefow,the oolloga ir lS.8ble under 

tb4OOIltF~ttOthOt~WhOPiOFhi8 8d#IF~fbl'th8Idtlth=OZith. 

l3ut w know or M reuon uhy the aollycr oould not re~ulre arty 

ol? all of rush teaahem to to&ah the iirrt month of the rm%t 

8OIUJ8t@?WhbhVO~~J1~tJbUtb ninthmonthundw-the 

oontraatr Al80, w are of the an that the aollege and tho 

m-f mnth mdor the aontraat 

adug the reaond nor&h or the third month of 

the next remeatatr. If 8U& ti@'tb8ROllt8 aould be worked Out, it 

would tend to equaJ.izu the numbor or teaahorr 0vor the *ntlxw 

seswtew. 

ticma 

V-f W I-- 

A!eTmxEx- OF Txtd
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

June 30, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00353

- CR

EX PARTE Andrez ZUNIGA

- GUTIERREZ

From the County Court

, Kin ney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12108CR Honorable Roland Andrade , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A ppellant’s brief i s due on July 5, 2022. Before the due date, Appellant filed a n unopposed first motion for a thirty

- day extension of time to file the brief

. Appellant’s motion is granted

. Appellant’s brief is due on August 4, 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38. 6( d ).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvare z, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 30th day of June, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13(a)-14(a)****(SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION)**I, Steven Kelly, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB in accordance with Rule 15(d)-2 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 of One Earth Energy, LLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 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 One Earth Energy, LLC, as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report; 4. One Earth Energy, LLC’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for One Earth Energy, LLC, and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to One Earth Energy, LLC, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of One Earth Energy, LLC’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any changes in One Earth Energy, LLC’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during One Earth Energy, LLC’s mostrecent fiscal year that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, One Earth Energy, LLC’s internal control over financial reporting.5. One Earth Energy, LLC’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to One Earth Energy, LLC’sauditors and the audit committee of One Earth Energy, LLC’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect One Earth Energy, LLC’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in One Earth Energy, LLC’s internal controls over financialreporting.        Date: June 14, 2007 /s/ Steven Kelly   Steven Kelly   (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Fuller and another *v.*Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. and another.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

August 9, 1887.)

Equity Practice—Motion to Dismiss.

The court will Rot, upon an ordinary notice of motion to dismiss, anticipate the regular trial of a cause, hy examining the pleadings and proofs, to determine whether the court has jurisdiction of the action, or whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought.

*L. A. Fuller,*for complainants.

*Amenta, Rilch & Woodford,*for defendants.

Lacombe, J.

Issue has been joined in this case by filing an answer, and the complainant has thereupon taken and completed his proof. Defendants now move to dismiss the bill “on the ground that the testimony wholly fails to support any right to relief in this court.” In other words, instead of waiting for the regular trial term, and then disposing of the case in the usual manner, defendants request that a species of semi-trial be now had under an ordinary notice of motion. The court is invited to consider the pleadings and proof as if the case were properly here for final disposition, and, if it fail to concur in the defendants’ view of the law, they may, putting in such further testimony as they may be advised, proceed, hereafter to try the case over again, at another term, and probably before another judge. The inconvenience of such a practice is manifest, and as it is concededly novel, defendants being unable to point to a single case, reported or unreported, in which it has been approved, this court must decline to sanction its inauguration.

*697Defendants also claim that the court has no jurisdiction; the amount in controversy not exceeding §500. Inasmuch as its jurisdiction may be challenged at any time, they contend that the court should now dismiss the bill on that ground. The defendants concede that upon the bill alono such a motion would not prevail, it being “possible to infer from the hill, standing alone, tlio existence of a state of facts by reason of which the amount in controversy might exceed $500.” But they contend ihat *“looking through*the testimony with a view to discovering the amount in controversy,” it becomes evident that there is a total failure on the part of the complainant to show a sufficient amount in controversy to sustain the jurisdiction. If, however, this is to be determined by a consideration of the proof as well as the pleading, such determination is neither more nor less iban a trial, and must, like other trials, be had at the regular term assigned for such business.

The preliminary objection raised by complainant to the hearing of this motion is therefore sustained, and the motion dismissed, for the reasons indicated above.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 110 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a permanent 

extension of the lower income threshold for the medical expense deduction. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 10, 2019 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a permanent extension of the lower income threshold 

for the medical expense deduction. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medical Expense Sav5 ings Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF REDUCTION IN MED7 ICAL EXPENSE DEDUCTION FLOOR. 

8 (a) REDUCTION.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 110 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 213(a) of the Inter2 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘10 percent’’ and inserting ‘‘7.5 percent’’. 

4 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 213 

5 of such Code is amended by striking subsection (f). 

6 (b) REPEAL OF MINIMUM TAX PREFERENCE.—Sec7 tion 56(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

8 amended by striking subparagraph (B). 

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2018. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Austin Moses, Appellant.

[976 NYS2d 78]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Adlerberg, J.H.O., and Gregory Carro, J., at suppression proceed*448ings; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered August 13, 2009, convicting defendant of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress two written statements. There is no basis for disturbing the court’s credibility determinations. The People elicited sufficient evidence to satisfy their burden of establishing the voluntariness of these statements, notwithstanding some lack of recollection on the part of police witnesses *(see generally People v Witherspoon,*66 NY2d 973 [1985]). Between the two written statements, defendant made an oral statement that the court suppressed. Defendant asserts that the second written statement was the product of the suppressed statement. However, the court suppressed the statement solely on the ground of the officer’s inability to recall the details and circumstances of that statement, and it made no express finding that the statement was unlawfully obtained. It is thus unclear whether the court was suppressing the oral statement as involuntary, or on other grounds not necessarily within the proper scope of a suppression hearing, which is not concerned with the trial issue of whether a statement was actually made *(see People v Garcia,*197 AD2d 380 [1st Dept 1993], *lv denied*82 NY2d 849 [1993]). In any event, regardless of the reason for suppression of the oral statement, there is nothing to indicate that defendant gave the second written statement as a result of the oral statement *(see People v Tanner,*30 NY2d 102, 105-106 [1972]; *People v Rifkin,*289 AD2d 262, 263 [2d Dept 2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 759 [2002]). Finally, defendant did not preserve his claim that the police used coercive tactics to obtain either or both of his written statements, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that it is not supported by the record.

By failing to make timely and specific objections, defendant failed to preserve his challenges to the prosecutor’s summation *(see People v Romero,*7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal *(see People v Overlee,*236 AD2d 133 [1st Dept 1997], *lv denied*91 NY2d 976 [1998]; *People v D'Alessandro,*184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1st Dept 1992], *lv denied*81 NY2d 884 [1993]).

The court’s instruction on temporary and innocent possession, which tracked the language of the Criminal Jury Instructions, correctly stated the law. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Gische, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 1, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00180

- CV

IN RE Richard Cecil PETERSON and Alma Peterson

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On March 30, 2015

, relator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. T he court has

considered relator s ’ petition and i s of the opinion that relators are not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The

court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on April 1, 2015

.



### PER CURIA M

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceed ing arises out of Cause No. 2012

- CI

- 08827, styled Richard Cecil Peterson and Alma Peterson v. John

Lawrence Jimenez, M.D.; Brian Phillip Perry, M.D.; Christopher Ayers Bogaev, M.D., Richard Kurt Newman,

M.D.; and Methodist Healthcare System of San Antonio, Ltd., LLP d/b/a Methodist Hospital , pending in the 150th

Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David A. Canales presiding.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

July 17, 2015

03-15-00215-CV

Lenny Acevedo v. Federal National Mortgage Association

I received a deposit for the appeal transcript on July 8th,

2015. I am requesting an extension until July 31st, 2015.

Thank you for your consideration and patience. Please contact

me if you have any further questions.

Thank you,

Amanda Anderson, CSR

Official Court Reporter

County Court at Law No. 2

Travis County, Texas

1000 Guadalupe St., Rm 211

Austin, Texas 78701

512 854-9250

FAX: 512 854-4724
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 838 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 838

Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Kleen Energy Systems natural 
                             gas explosion.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2020

Mr. Courtney (for himself, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. 
 Himes, and Mrs. Hayes) submitted the following resolution; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Kleen Energy Systems natural 
                             gas explosion.

Whereas, on February 7, 2010, six workers died and dozens were injured in an 
        explosion at the Kleen Energy Systems power station construction site in 
        Middletown, Connecticut, when natural gas that had pooled on the ground 
        caught fire;
Whereas Peter C. Chepulis, Ronald J. Crabb, Raymond E. Dobratz, Kenneth W. 
        Haskell, Jr., Roy D. Rushton, and Vance C. Walters tragically lost their 
        lives as a result of this preventable catastrophe;
Whereas the Occupational Safety and Health Administration found ``willful'' 
        violations of safety protocol that led to the explosion;
Whereas fines assessed as a result of these violations were miniscule compared 
        to the lives lost and the public resources required to rescue the 
        injured, investigate the causes, and clean up the damage;
Whereas the statutory fines under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 
        are woefully out of date due to Congress' failure to modernize the law 
        since its passage;
Whereas each day an average of 14 workers are killed due to workplace injuries 
        in the United States; and
Whereas tens of thousands of Americans with workplace injuries and illness have 
        become permanently disabled: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) honors the memories of the workers killed in the Kleen 
        Energy Systems natural gas explosion on February 7, 2010;
            (2) expresses its deepest sympathy to the families of the 
        victims and those whose lives have been irreparably changed as 
        a result of this disaster; and
            (3) recognizes--
                    (A) the risks that workers face on the job; and
                    (B) the need to strengthen and modernize the 
                Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to better--
                            (i) prevent deadly disasters;
                            (ii) protect workers from occupational 
                        injury, illness, and retaliation; and
                            (iii) hold employers accountable for 
                        violations of safety laws.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7461

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR PETER PELKEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CR-97-160-A)

Submitted: December 22, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999

Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arthur Peter Pelkey, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Arthur Peter Pelkey appeals a district court’s marginal order

denying his motion for release to home confinement. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err in

denying the motion. Because Pelkey was not eligible for release to

home confinement until December 1, 1998, months after he filed his

motion, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 3624(c) (West Supp. 1998), and he did not

exhaust the necessary administrative remedies, see 28 C.F.R.

§ 542.10 (1998), Pelkey was not entitled to the relief he seeks.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Pelkey’s

motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED