alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AC09-166-000]

Take notice that on July 7, 2009, SLC Pipeline LLC submitted a request for waiver of the requirement to file the FERC Form No. 6 from December 8, 2008 to December 31, 2008.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

                    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at                     *http://www.ferc.gov.*                     Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.                

                    This filing is accessible on-line at                     *http://www.ferc.gov,*                     using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive E-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail                     *FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov,*                     or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

*Comment Date:*                     August 19, 2009.                

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-17698 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION
REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the filing of the financial statements of Ophthalmic Imaging Systems
(Registrant) for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 (the Report),
each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

|1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.
|-- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: May 11, 2007

| |                        
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | /s/ Gil Allon          
| |                        
| | Gil Allon,             
| | Chief Executive Officer
|
|
|
| | /s/ Ariel Shenhar      
| |                        
| | Ariel Shenhar,         
| | Chief Financial Officer
|

26
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the quarterly report on Form 10-Q(the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2007, of ValenceTechnology, Inc. (the “Issuer”).

 

I, Thomas F. Mezger, the Principal Financial Officerof the Issuer, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

 
|   |   | (i)    |   | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                          |
|   |   | (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Form 10-Q  fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and  results of operations of the Issuer.                                 |

 
| Dated: February 11, 2008 |                 |
|-------------------------------|----------------------|
|                          | /s/ Thomas F. Mezger |   |
|                          | Thomas F. Mezger     |

 

----
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-51291 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONIO GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-99-CV-394-SS (A-98-CR-19-2-SS)

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Antonio Garcia, federal prisoner # 77584-079, pleaded guilty to count one of the indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin, and count 12 charging him with using a telephone to facilitate the drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 843(b). A certificate of appealability (COA) was granted on the issue of the voluntariness of Garcia’s pleaNo. 00-51291 -2- agreement. See United States v. Garcia , No. 00-51291 (5th Cir. May 17, 2001) (single-judge order). Garcia argues that, based on Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), his guilty plea was involuntary because the quantity of drugs was not charged in the indictment, the district court was thus without jurisdiction, the district court did not properly inform him of the charges to which he was pleading guilty, and his counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty under those circumstances. Since the parties filed their briefs, we rejected an identical jurisdictional argument in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 case in Wesson v. U.S. Penitentiary Beaumont, Tx. , 305 F.3d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 2002). The petitioner in Wesson also argued that his indictment was defective under Apprendi because it did not allege a drug quantity, and that the district court was deprived of jurisdiction. Citing United States v. Cotton , 122 S. Ct. 1781, 1785-86 (2002), United States v. Longoria , 298 F.3d 367 (5th Cir. 2002 (en banc), and United States v. Gonzalez , 259 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc), we held that the petitioner’s claim that his defective indictment deprived the court of jurisdiction was meritless because defects in an indictment are nonjurisdictional.

Wesson , 305 F.3d at 346. We also recently held in United States v. Brown , 305 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2002), a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 case, that the new rule of criminal procedure announced in Apprendi does not apply retroactively on collateral review of initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255No. 00-51291 -3- motions. Because Garcia’s claims are all dependent upon the retroactive application of Apprendi in this 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, and because it has been determined that Apprendi is not applicable retroactively on collateral review, the district court’s denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 relief is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit No. 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Christ H. Manos certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Williams Industries, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this report on Form 10-K 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
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
report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any changes in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial
reporting, 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
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls over financial reporting.

October 14, 2005                     /s/ Christ H. Manos
                                    ------------------------
                                     Christ H. Manos
                                     Treasurer, Controller
Back to Contents

**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 Authentidate Holding Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, being, Surendra Pai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Dennis H. Bunt, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, do each hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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) 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. 

Dated: May 16, 2005

| /s/ Surendra Pai               | /s/Dennis H. Bunt_________ |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Chief Executive Officer                                                                              | Chief Financial Officer    |

 

----
No. 1074.

#### Winding Gulf Collieries *v.*Board of Education et al.

May 13, 1946.

*James William Maxwell*and *Floyd McKinley Sayre*for petitioner.

*Clay S. Crouse*and *Grover C. Trail*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
CORE LABORATORIES LP , Appellant

v.

SPECTRUM TRACER SERVICES, L.L.C., Appellee

______________________

2015

- 1789, 2015

- 1790

______________________ Appeals from the United States Patent and Trad emark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board

, in No s. 95/002, 141, 95/002,144.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
S TEFFEN N ATHANAEL J OHNSON , Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellant. Also repr esented by C HRISTOPHER E RNEST M ILLS , E IMERIC R EIG

P LESSIS ; J OSEPH D EAN L ECHTENBERGER , Houston, TX; T ANYA L. C HANEY , Shook, Hardy & Bacon , LLP, Houston, TX.

D ENNIS D ON B ROWN , Brown Patent Law, P .L.L.C.

, Broken Arrow, OK, argued for appellee. Also representedby J OHN C HRISTOPHER D AVIS , Johnson & Jones, P.C., Tulsa, OK.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (W ALLACH , P LAGER , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

April 7, 2016 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
##### 



Exhibit 10.20
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE CREDIT AGREEMENT
 SIXTH AMENDMENT TO LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
 Amendment 15th Loan Agreement WGE AGE Lender
    Amendments
 Section 1
 Finished Goods Inventory with No Sales Forecast
 Sixth Amendment Effective Date 15
 Section 1
 EBITDA plus plus minus plus




---



##### 



plus plus plus plus plus
 Subsection 12(d)
  Subsection 14(a)
 Tangible Net Worth
 Minimum Tangible Net Worth Tangible Net Worth less plus plus plus
 -2-




---



##### 



Subsection 14.(b)
 Leverage.
  Subsection 14(c)
 Intentionally Omitted.
 Subsection 14(e)
 EBITDA.
  Date
    
    Amount6-month period ending on June 30, 2006
    
    
    ($290,000
    )9-month period ending on September 30, 2006
    
    
    ($56,000
    )12-month period ending on December 31, 2006
    
    $
    534,00012-month period ending on March 31, 2007
    
    $
    820,00012-month period ending on June 30, 2007
    
    $
    780,000
 Representations and Warranties of Borrowers
  -3-




---



##### 



Conditions to Effectiveness of this Amendment
 Availability Reserve
 Costs and Expenses
 Loan Agreement Remains in Force
 -4-




---



##### 



Release
    No Novation
 Entire Agreement
 Severability
 Amendment
 -5-




---



##### 



WELLS-GARDNER ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,
as a BorrowerByItsAMERICAN GAMING & ELECTRONICS, INC.,
as a BorrowerByItsLASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as LenderByIts
 -6-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00258-CV

R. P., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY 

NO. 18,072, THE HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant R.P. filed her notice of appeal on April 3, 2013. The appellate record was 

complete May 9, 2013, making appellant’s brief due May 29, 2013. On May 31, 2013, counsel for 

appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

Recent amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final 

disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a), 

available at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/12/12903200.pdf (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later 

than June 19, 2013. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he

should not be held in contempt of court.
It is ordered on June 3, 2013.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED September 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20991 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS ANTONIO MONTES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-199

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Luis Antonio Montes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to illegal reentry. He argues that the district court’s 15-month upward departure was plainly unreasonable. Weneed not decide whether Montes’ sentence was a Guidelines or nonGuidelines sentence because, in either case, his sentence was not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Jones , 444 F.3d 430, 441 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 2958 (2006). If the district court imposed a Guidelines sentence, the nature of Montes’ prior offense and the six-month period withinNo. 05-20991 -2- which he reoffended after deportation were factors present to an exceptional degree warranting a departure, even if the period within which he reoffended had already been taken into consideration when calculating his criminal history score. See United States v. Saldana , 427 F.3d 298, 309-10 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 810 (2005). If the district court instead imposed a non-Guidelines sentence, it used the advisory guideline range as a reference, and it’s reasons for the departure were fact specific and consistent with the directives of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(1), (2)(A) that in determining the sentence to impose, the court “consider . . . the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant” and “promote respect for the law.” See United States v. Smith , 440 F.3d 704, 707 (5th Cir. 2006). Consequently, the decision to upwardly depart from the advisory range was not plain error under either scenario. Montes’ reliance on United States v. Lambert , 984 F.2d 658 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc), for the proposition that the extent of the departure was plainly unreasonable is unpersuasive. The record does not support a determination that the district court upwardly departed pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, and Lambert is therefore inapposite. Finally, we reject Montes’ contention that the district court’s written reasons for the departure were insufficient. By specifying that Montes returned to the UnitedNo. 05-20991 -3- States illegally within six months of being deported, the court adequately complied with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.2    INFORMATION REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"),
provides that if part of a registration statement at the time it becomes
effective contains an untrue statement of a material fact, or omits a material
fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statements therein
not misleading, any person acquiring a security pursuant to such registration
statement (unless it is proved that at the time of such acquisition such person
knew of such untruth or omission) may assert a claim against, among others, an
accountant who has consented to be named as having certified any part of the
registration statement or as having prepared any report for use in connection
with the registration statement.

Woodhead Industries, Inc. dismissed Arthur Andersen LLP ("Arthur Andersen") as
its independent auditors, effective May 7, 2002. For additional information, see
the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K dated May 8, 2002. After reasonable
efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen's written consent
to the incorporation by reference into the Company's registration statements
(Form S-8 File Nos. 333-87060, 333-36070, 333-26379, 33-77968 and 33-40414) and
the related prospectuses (the "Registration Statements") of Arthur Andersen's
audit report with respect to the Company's consolidated financial statements as
of September 29, 2001 and for the two years in the period then ended. Under
these circumstances, Rule 437a under the Securities Act permits the Company to
file the Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is incorporated by reference into the
Registration Statements, without a written consent from Arthur Andersen. As a
result, with respect to transactions in the Company's securities pursuant to the
Registration Statements that occur subsequent to the date this Annual Report is
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen will not have
any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act for any untrue
statements of a material fact contained in the financial statements audited by
Arthur Andersen or any omissions of a material fact required to be stated
therein and thus no claim could be asserted against Arthur Andersen under
Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.