alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Deny Writ and Opinion Filed June 28, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-13-00782-CV IN RE CHARLES JONES, Relator On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-12-2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Francis Relator contends the trial judge erred in granting a petition fo r bill of review. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not s hown he is entitled to the relief requested. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (T ex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

130782F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
#### Parametric Capital Management, LLC, et al., Respondents, v Michael A. Lacher et al., Appellants.

[822 NYS2d 60]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered December 13, 2005, granting plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve and file a second amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to replead was adequately supported by an affirmation of an attorney with personal knowledge of the results of the arbitration proceeding in which plaintiffs had been represented by defendants, and a proposed second amended complaint verified by plaintiff Erik Postnieks (see *Davidowitz v Dixie Assoc.,*59 AD2d 659 [1977]; *and see Farrell v K.J.D.E. Corp.,*244 AD2d 905 [1997]). While defenses may exist, the claims sought to be added are not palpably merit-less (see *Ruffing v Union Carbide Corp.,*308 AD2d 526 [2003]), and the grant of leave did not unfairly surprise or otherwise prejudice defendants.

In disposing of a prior motion by defendants to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, the motion court granted leave to replead the legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action. Plaintiffs, however, did not initially re-plead the dismissed claims within the original action but instead realleged the claims, along with a claim for breach of contract, in the context of a new action bearing a new index number. While the court dismissed the new complaint “with prejudice,” it is clear that the dismissal was not on the merits but by reason of the procedural device used to reassert the dismissed causes, and that the court by dismissing “with prejudice” merely intended to prevent plaintiffs from again asserting the dismissed causes in the form of a new action, not, as defendants now contend, to preclude amendment of the original complaint. Concur—Andrias, J.P, Marlow, Nardelli, Williams and Sweeny, JJ.
Exhibit 4.3







Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 7, 2013, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-186373) of Smart Trust, New
Jersey Municipal Portfolio of Closed-End Funds Trust, Series 2.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


Grant
Thornton LLP


Chicago, Illinois


March 7, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 800 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 800

 To provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any 
 United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is 
  chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided 
  support for acts of international terrorism, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2003

  Mr. Fossella (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Burr, Mr. Cannon, Mr. 
  Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. English, Mr. Flake, Mr. Franks of 
   Arizona, Mr. Herger, Mr. King of New York, Mr. King of Iowa, Mrs. 
 Musgrave, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Ms. 
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, and Mr. Pearce) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the withholding of United States contributions to any 
 United Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is 
  chaired or presided over by a country that has repeatedly provided 
  support for acts of international terrorism, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. WITHHOLDING OF UNITED STATES CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CERTAIN 
              UNITED NATIONS COMMISSIONS, ORGANIZATIONS, OR ANY 
              AFFILIATED AGENCIES.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the 
Department of State or any other Federal department or agency may not 
be used for the following:
            (1) United States contributions to any United Nations 
        commission, organization, or affiliated agency that is chaired 
        or presided over by a country, the government of which the 
        Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of section 
        6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 
        App. 2405(j)(1)) has repeatedly provided support for acts of 
        international terrorism, until such time as the President 
        determines that such commission, organization, or agency is no 
        longer chaired or presided over by such country and the 
        commission, organization, or agency has established appropriate 
        electoral reforms, including minimum standards for leadership 
        positions and the elimination of automatic rotation of such 
        leadership positions.
            (2) Expenses for any United States delegation to any United 
        Nations commission, organization, or affiliated agency 
        described in paragraph (1) until such time as the President 
        makes the determination described in such paragraph.
                                 <all>
```
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5363

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2004

Received 

AN ACT

To authorize salary adjustments for Justices and judges of 

the United States for fiscal year 2005.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

HR 5363 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SALARY ADJUSTMENTS 

2 FOR FEDERAL JUSTICES AND JUDGES. 

3 Pursuant to section 140 of Public Law 97–92, Jus4 tices and judges of the United States are authorized dur5 ing fiscal year 2005 to receive a salary adjustment in ac6 cordance with section 461 of title 28, United States Code.

Passed the House of Representatives November 17, 

2004. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
HOUSEHOLD DATA

ANNUAL AVERAGES

19. Persons at work in agriculture and nonagricultural industries by hours of work

[Numbers in thousands]

Hours of work

2023

Persons at work Percent distribution

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

All

industries

Agriculture

and related

industries

Nonagricultural

industries

Total, persons at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155,167 2,179 152,987 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,869 587 34,282 22.5 26.9 22.4

1 to 4 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,613 42 1,571 1.0 1.9 1.0

5 to 14 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,475 134 5,341 3.5 6.2 3.5

15 to 29 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,082 269 16,813 11.0 12.4 11.0

30 to 34 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,699 142 10,557 6.9 6.5 6.9

35 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120,298 1,592 118,705 77.5 73.1 77.6

35 to 39 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,390 97 9,293 6.1 4.4 6.1

40 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,549 737 75,812 49.3 33.8 49.6

41 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,359 758 33,600 22.1 34.8 22.0

41 to 48 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,184 141 12,043 7.9 6.5 7.9

49 to 59 hours. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,453 247 13,205 8.7 11.3 8.6

60 hours and over. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,722 370 8,352 5.6 17.0 5.5

Average hours, total at work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.5 41.0 38.5 – – –

Average hours, persons who usually work full time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.9 46.7 41.9 – – –

NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication criteria (values

not shown where base is less than 35,000).

1
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5211 

To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 5, 2004 

Mr. PICKERING (for himself, Mr. BERRY, Mr. MCCRERY, Mrs. EMERSON, and 

Mr. MORAN of Kansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily new shipper bonding privileges. 

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 ‘‘New Shipper Review 

5 Amendment Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF NEW SHIPPER BOND7 ING PRIVILEGES. 

8 Clause (iii) of section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act 

9 of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(2)(B)(iii)) shall not be effec10 tive during the 3-year period beginning on the date of the 

11 enactment of this Act. 
2 

•HR 5211 IH 

1 SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS. 

2 Not later than 2 years after the date of the enact3 ment of this Act, the Commissioner of Customs, the Sec4 retary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Rep5 resentative shall submit to the Committee on Ways and 

6 Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

7 on Finance of the Senate a report containing— 

8 (1) recommendations on whether the suspension 

9 of the effectiveness of section 751(a)(2)(B)(iii) of 

10 the Tariff Act of 1930 should be extended beyond 

11 the date provided in section 2 of this Act; and 

12 (2) assessments of the effectiveness of any ad13 ministrative measures that have been implemented 

14 to address the difficulties giving rise to section 2 of 

15 this Act, including— 

16 (A) problems in assuring the collection of 

17 antidumping duties on imports from new ship18 pers; 

19 (B) administrative burdens imposed on the 

20 Department of Commerce by new shipper re21 views; and 

22 (C) the use of the bonding privilege by im23 porters from new shippers to circumvent the ef24 fect of antidumping duty orders. 

Æ
July 2, 1999



Securities and Exchange Commission
Branch of Document Control
450 Fifth Street N.W.,
Washington, DC 20549

VIA EDGAR

Subject: Certification under Rule 497(j) - The AAL Target Series Funds
         File No. 33-12911, File No. 811-5075


Dear Ladies and Gentleman:

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of
Additional  Information  that would have been filed  pursuant to 497(c) upon the
Post-Effective  Amendment No. 34 to the Registrant's  registration  statement on
Form N1-A would not have differed from that  contained in said amendment to such
registration statement that was filed electronically on June 29, 1999.

Please direct any comments or questions  concerning this certification to Steven
J. Fredricks, Esq. at (920) 734-5721 extension 6864.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steven J. Fredricks

Steven J Fredricks
Attorney III
AAL Capital Management Corporation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               7,033,882
<CASH>                                       2,108,901
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           5,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,276,120
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              4,779,871
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              8,037
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                265,793
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    140,630
<COMMON>                                        46,443
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,451,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,276,120
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,053,518
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            222,098
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                               5,331,960
<BENEFITS>                                     253,444
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     83,070
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           821,699
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (614,370)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (22,356)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (592,014)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                           (22,356)
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0


</TABLE>
# temp help agency workers

Fatal occupational injuries to temporary help agency workers, 2016-2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries to temporary help agency workers, 2016-2018		

Fatal occupational injuries to temporary help agency workers, 2016-2018 - continued		

Fatal occupational injuries to temporary help agency workers, 2016-2018		

Page &P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Elias ROMERO-MARTINEZ, a/k/a Armando Calderon Sol, a/k/a Juan Ramirez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-4333.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 20, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 18, 2012.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, Jennifer P. *216May-Parker, Yvonne V. Watford-McKin-ney, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Without the benefit of a written plea agreement, Jose Elias Romero-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, pled guilty to illegally reentering the United States following his removal as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced Romero-Martinez to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Romero-Martinez contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. For the following reasons, we affirm.

We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. *Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Diosdado-Star,*630 F.3d 359, 363 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2946, 180 L.Ed.2d 236 (2011). Where, as here, the sentence is within the properly calculated Guidelines range, we apply a presumption that the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See United States v. Bynum,*604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3442, 177 L.Ed.2d 347 (2010).

Despite our circuit precedent, Romero-Martinez asserts that the district court’s sentence is not entitled to a presumption of reasonableness because the *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”) § 2L1.2(b) (1) (A) (ii) (2011) enhancement for a prior deportation following a crime of violence unfairly punishes the defendant for prior conduct. This argument amounts to a policy attack on the Guidelines, and is without merit.*
      *Accord United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,*564 F.3d 357, 367 (5th Cir.2009). The only other arguments that Romero-Martinez offers pertain to the weight given by the district court to certain factors in Romero-Martinez’s background and his current family situation. We conclude that these arguments are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

This court has previously rejected the same argument, albeit in unpublished, non-binding decisions. *See United States*v. *Mendoza-Mendoza,*413 Fed.Appx. 600, 601-02 (4th Cir.2011); *United States v. Ibarra-Zelaya,*278 Fed.Appx. 290, 290-91 (4th Cir.2008).
**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

 

  I, **Nicholas Kaiser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2013 (the “Report”).

 I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

  Date: January 29, 2014  /s/ *Nicholas Kaiser*  President 

**CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C 1350)**

  I, **Christopher Fankhauser**, certify that:

This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form N-CSR for the period ended November 30, 2013 (the “Report”).

I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

Date: January 29, 2014

/s/ *Christopher Fankhauser*Treasurer
EX-10.39



 Exhibit 10.39 
 AMENDMENT TO THE EXCLUSIVE DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT DATED 
 APRIL 9TH, 2010
ENTERED INTO BETWEEN 
 BIOAMBER S.A.S. AND MITSUI & CO., LTD. 

 
 This Amendment Agreement is
made as of January 1st, 2013 between BioAmber S.A.S.
(“BioAmber”) and Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (“Mitsui”). 
 WHEREAS BioAmber and Mitsui have entered into an Exclusive
Distributorship Agreement dated April 9, 2010, as amended (the “Distribution Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS the parties agree to amend
the Distribution Agreement as set forth herein. 
 THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 

 

	1.	The Distribution Agreement is modified in the following manner, the provisions of the Distribution Agreement not modified herein shall continue to be in force as stated
in the Distribution Agreement: 

  

	 	1.1.	BioAmber and Mitsui hereto agree to exclude “Turkey” as a country within the Territory (as defined in the Distribution Agreement and as listed in Exhibit A of
the Distribution Agreement), as if such country had never been included as a country within the Territory. 

 IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT AS OF THE DATE FIRST WRITTEN ABOVE. 
  

			
		 	BIOAMBER S.A.S.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Jean-François Huc

		 	Jean-François Huc, President
		
		 	Mitsui & Co., Ltd.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daiji Kojima

		 	Signature
		
		 	 Daiji Kojima
 General Manager, Specialty Chemicals Div.

		 	Name and Title
38

20

34

1

6

32

13

17

20 18

0

10

20

30

40

50

Management,

professional, and

related occupations

Service occupations Sales and office

occupations

Natural resources,

construction, and

maintenance

occupations

Production,

transportation, and

material moving

occupations

Women Men

Chart 5-7. Women are concentrated in management, 

professional, sales, and office occupations

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Percent distribution of employed women and men by occupation

2006

Chart 5-7. Women are concentrated in management, 

professional, sales, and office occupations

• Almost three-quarters of women were employed in management, professional, 

sales, and office occupations in 2006, compared with about half of men. 

• Fewer than 1 in 10 women were employed in natural resources, construction, 

and maintenance occupations or production, transportation, and material 

moving occupations.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 13, 2022. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, June 13, 2022 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0390. MONIKABEN MUKESHDHAI PATEL v. JUDY ANN SIMMONS FAMILY TRUST. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 16CI01688