alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00112-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.D., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 97-CS-085

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O RDER

This is an appeal from an “Order Concerning Community Supervision,” which appears

at its essence to have revoked John Dupree’s community supervision and ordered him

imprisoned until he “purge[s] himself of this revocation” by paying specified sums, to be

distributed by the Cass County Sheriff’s Department toward child support arrears. 

No court reporter sat, and it appears that the trial judge acted as his own court recorder. 

He has informed the parties that the record is destroyed and cannot be provided. On 

February 6, this Court issued an order directing counsel to confer and determine whether they 

could provide an agreed statement of the case. We have now been informed by counsel that 

they can do so. 

Accordingly, we now direct counsel to create an agreed record. See TEX. R. APP. P.

34.2, 34.3. The agreed statement should be filed with the trial court clerk within thirty days of 

the date of this order, on or before March 21, 2014. Within ten days of the date of its filing, the 

trial court clerk shall prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing that agreed 

statement with this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 19, 2014
OMB APPROVAL
OMB Number: 3235-0070
Expires: April 30, 2003
Estimated average burden
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3378 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

to designate certain parts of United States Route 264 and the Eastern 

North Carolina Gateway Corridor as future parts of the Interstate System, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 

Mr. BURR (for himself and Mr. TILLIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency 

Act of 1991 to designate certain parts of United States 

Route 264 and the Eastern North Carolina Gateway 

Corridor as future parts of the Interstate System, and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Eastern North Caro5 lina Gateway Act of 2016’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3378 IS

1 SEC. 2. ROUTE DESIGNATION. 

2 (a) HIGH-PRIORITY CORRIDOR ON NATIONAL HIGH3 WAY SYSTEM.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 

4 Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 

5 119 Stat. 1210) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(89) United States Route 264 from its inter8 section with United States Route 64 (High Priority 

9 Corridor 13) near Zebulon, North Carolina, to 

10 Greenville, North Carolina. 

11 ‘‘(90) The Eastern North Carolina Gateway 

12 Corridor from United States Route 70 (High Pri13 ority Corridor 82) in the vicinity of Kinston, North 

14 Carolina, passing in the vicinity of Greenville, North 

15 Carolina, to United States Route 64 (High Priority 

16 Corridor 13) in the vicinity of Bethel, North Caro17 lina, and generally along the routes of United States 

18 Route 13 and North Carolina Highway 11.’’. 

19 (b) FUTURE PARTS OF INTERSTATE SYSTEM.—Sec20 tion 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transpor21 tation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2033; 119 Stat. 

22 1213) is amended by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(83)’’ 

23 and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(83), subsection (c)(89), and 

24 subsection (c)(90)’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 23.3****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 2-90847, 33-33620,333-56904, 333-66698, and 333-106852 on Form S-8 of Westmoreland Coal Company and subsidiaries ofour report dated March 10, 2006, related to the financial statements of Westmoreland—LG&E Partnersas of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31,2005, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Westmoreland Coal Company for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.Deloitte & Touche LLPIndianapolis, Indiana
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 7

- 6 1 0 0 6

J O S E A N G E L C A R A C H U R I

- R O S E N D O

P e t i t i o n e r

v

.

E R I C H

. H O L D E R , J R

. , U S A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L

R e s p o n d e n t

P e t i t i o n F o r R e v i e w o f a n O r d e r
o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s B o a r d o f I m m i g r a t i o n A p p e a l s

O N R E M A N D F R O M T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T

O F T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

B e f o r e J O N E S
, C h i e f J u d g e , a n d K I N G a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M :
T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t r e v e r s e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h i s c o u r t i n C a r a c h u r i

R o s e n d o v

. H o l d e r , N o

. 0 9

- 6 0 ,

_ _ _ _ _ U

. S

.

_ _ _ _ _ , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. 2 5 7 7

. T h e

c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e C o u r t ’ s a c t i o n i s t h a t t h i s p e t i t i o n e r w a s n o t i n e l i g i b l e f o r

c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l b a s e d o n h i s r e c i d i v i s t s t a t e m i s d e m e a n o r c o n v i c t i o n f o r
d r u g p o s s e s s i o n

. B e c a u s e t h e s t a t e d i d n o t e n h a n c e h i s c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d o n t h e f a c t o f a p r i o r c o n v i c t i o n , “ h e h a s n o t b e e n ‘ c o n v i c t e d ’ u n d e r § 1 2 2 9 b ( a ) ( 3 ) o f a

‘ f e l o n y p u n i s h a b l e ’ a s s u c h ‘ u n d e r t h e C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s A c t , ’ 1 8 U S C § 9 2 4 ( c ) ( 2 )

. ” I

d

. a t

_ _ _ _ _ U

. S

. _ _ _ _ _ , 1 3 0 S

. C t

. a t 2 5 8 9

. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s c o u r t U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 6, 2 010
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 07-61006 Document: 00511196944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/06/2010N o

. 0 7

- 6 1 0 0 6

m u s t G R A N T t h e p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w a n d R E M A N D t o t h e B I A f o r f u r t h e r

p r o c e e d i n g s t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r c a n c e l l a t i o n o f r e m o v a l

. P e t i t i o n G r a n t e d ; C a s e R e m a n d e d

.

2 Case: 07-61006 Document: 00511196944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/06/2010
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2


                        CONSENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



March 8, 2002

The Wiser Oil Company
8115 Preston Road, Suite 400
Dallas, Texas 75225

Gentlemen:

  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-44171, 33-62441, 33-44172, 333-22525, and 333-
15083) relating to the stock incentive plans of The Wiser Oil Company (the
Company) of our reserves estimates included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A
(the Annual Report) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 1997, and to
the references to our firm included in the Annual Report. Our estimates of the
oil, condensate, natural gas liquids (shown collectively as "Oil and NGL"), and
natural gas reserves of certain properties owned by the Company are contained in
our reports entitled "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 2000 on Certain
Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves". Reserves estimates
from our reports are included in the sections "Principal Oil and Gas
Properties," "Oil and Gas Reserves," and "Supplemental Financial  Information
for the years ending December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998 (unaudited)-Oil and Gas
Reserves." Also included in the third section mentioned above are reserves
estimates from our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1997 on Certain
Properties owned by the Wiser Oil Company-Proved Reserves." In the sections
"Summary Reserve and Operating Data" and "Oil and Gas Reserves," estimates of
reserves, revenue, and discounted present worth set forth in our above mentioned
reports have been combined with estimates of reserves, revenue, and discounted
present worth prepared by another petroleum consultant. We are necessarily
unable to verify the accuracy of the reserves, revenue, and present worth values
contained in the Annual Report when our estimates have been combined with those
of another firm.

                                Very truly yours,


                                /S/ DEGOLYER AND MACNAUGHTON

                                DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

MICHELE J. CLARK, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D14-1514 ) LAWRENCE R. CLARK, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________ ) Opinion filed November 19, 2014. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian, Judge. Robert M. Tager, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Donald A. Foster of The Foster Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee. SILBERMAN, Judge. In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, Michele J. Clark ( the Wife) appeals a nonfinal order entitled "Order on Wife's Motion for C ontempt." In the order, the trial court stated that it was sua sponte reducing the Wife 's previously ordered temporary support but did not rule on the Wife's contempt motio n. The order resulted from a noticed contempt hearing against Lawrence R. Clark (the Husband), and the Husband had not filed a motion to reduce the temporary support.- 2 - Because the Wife had no notice that the issue of a modificatio n of temporary support would be considered at the contempt hearing, the Husband properly concedes error on appeal, citing Wright v. Wright, 654 So. 2d 6 74, 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), and Dent v. Dent, 851 So. 2d 819, 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Stringer, J., concurring specially). Based on the lack of notice and a meani ngful opportunity to be heard, see Wright, 654 So. 2d at 674, we reverse the Order on W ife's Motion for Contempt that was rendered on March 17, 2014. We remand for re instatement of the temporary support obligation ordered on September 24, 2012. 1 See id.

Reversed and remanded.

VILLANTI and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

1 In the Wife's reply brief, counsel suggests that we order the H usband to pay the Wife's attorney's fees incurred in this appeal. We dec line to do so because a motion for appellate attorney's fees has not been filed in comp liance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(b).
IV 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from 

the Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 15, 2003

Mr. NEY submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed 

to 

RESOLUTION

Dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Sixth Congressional District of Tennessee.

1 Resolved, That the election contest relating to the of2 fice of Representative from the Sixth Congressional Dis3 trict of Tennessee is dismissed.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 38671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17189]



[[Page 38671]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    Title: Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Client Impact 
Survey.
    OMB Control Number: 0693-0021.
    Form Number(s): None.
    Type of Request: Regular.
    Number of Respondents: 10,000.
    Average Hours per Response: 12 minutes.
    Burden Hours: 2,000.
    Needs and Uses: The objective of the NIST Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership Program (MEP) is to enhance productivity, technological 
performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of small-and 
medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms. Through this client impact 
survey, the MEP will collect data necessary for program accountability; 
analysis and research into the effectiveness of the MEP program; 
reports to stakeholders; GPRA; continuous improvement efforts; 
knowledge sharing across the MEP system; and identification of best 
practices. Collection of this data is needed in order to comply with 
the MEP charter, as mandated by Congress.
    Affected Public: Business or other for profit institutions.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. 
Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections 
currently under review by OMB.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#da9593889b8589afb8b7b3a9a9b3b5b49ab5b7b8f4bfb5aaf4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6926203b28363a1c0b04001a1a0006072906040b470c0619470e061f">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to (202) 395-5806.

Sheleen Dumas,
Departmental PRA Lead, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2017-17189 Filed 8-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jewett-Cameron Trading Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that, pursuant to 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) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|Date: April 12, 2010 | Signed:  /s/Donald M. Boone       
|-------------------- | ----------------------------------
|                     | Donald M. Boone,
President and CEO
No. 1086.

#### Piccard *v.*Sperry Corporation et al.

May 13, 1946.

*A. Joseph Geist*for petitioner.

*Frank J. Berberich, Henry A. Mulcahy, Isidor Wasservogel*and *E. W. Debevoise*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

Mr. Justice Reed took no part in the consideration or decision of this application.
No. 1136.

#### Swift & Co. *v.*Herzig, Administratrix.

May 20, 1946.

*Harold R. Medina*for petitioner.

*Maurice Edelbaum*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors and Stockholders of E-Sync Networks, Inc.;

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
E-Sync Networks, Inc., Nos. 33-7271 and 333-92933 on Form S-8, of our reports
dated March 5, 2000, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of E-Sync
Networks, Inc. as of December 31, 1999 and the related consolidated statements
of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit), and cash flows and for the year
then ended and for the two months ended December 31, 1998 which reports are
included in the annual report on Form 10-K.

                                             KPMG LLP


New York, New York
March 5, 2000
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0217n.06

No. 18-3708

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JESUS CARO LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN 

DISTRICT OF OHIO

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. The district court approved an application pursuant to Title III for the 

interception of wire and electronic communications from two cell phones suspected of being used 

in a drug trafficking organization. The interception led to the indictment of Jesus Caro Lopez and 

twelve co-defendants on a variety of drug trafficking charges. Caro Lopez moved to suppress the 

evidence collected through the wiretaps; he also moved for a Franks hearing. See Franks v. 

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). The district court denied his motion and his request for a hearing. 

Caro Lopez then entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent 

to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine, two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, one 

count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and one count of use of a communication facility 

in a felony related to controlled substances. His plea reserved the right to appeal the district court’s 

denial of the suppression motion.
No. 18-3708, United States v. Lopez

-2-

On appeal, Caro Lopez claims that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress 

because the warrant affidavit neither established probable cause to support the Title III wiretap 

applications nor complied with Title III’s necessity doctrine. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518(3)(c). He also 

claims the district court erred by denying his request for a Franks hearing.

In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court ably summarized the ninety-one-page warrant 

affidavit and demonstrated why that affidavit both established probable cause and comported with 

the necessity doctrine. The district court also explained that, although one statement in the warrant 

affidavit was inaccurate, Caro Lopez had failed for two reasons to establish his entitlement to a 

Franks hearing. First, he had failed to meet the “heavy burden” of making “a substantial 

preliminary showing” that the statement was either intentionally false or made in reckless disregard 

of the truth. United States v. Stewart, 306 F.3d 295, 304–05 (6th Cir. 2002). Second, he had not 

demonstrated that, without the inaccurate statement, the Title III order would not have issued. 

Franks, 438 U.S. at 155–56.

After carefully reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, this court 

has determined that the district court’s judgment should be affirmed. The district court’s opinion 

carefully and correctly states the facts and the governing law and explains its reasoning, with which 

we agree. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a panel opinion. We, therefore, AFFIRM 

the judgment for the reasons stated in the district court’s opinion and order dated March 13, 2018.
Exhibit 32(a)



---

Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Wendys International, Inc.



This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and
accompanies the annual report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the year ended December 28, 2003 of Wendys International, Inc. (the Issuer).



I, John T. Schuessler, the Chief Executive Officer of Issuer certify that, to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) |  | the Form 10-K 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-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.
| | ---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: March 12, 2004



/s/    JOHN T. SCHUESSLERName: John T. Schuessler




A signed original of this
written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Wendys International, Inc. and will be retained by Wendys International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
CONTACT:
                                               Marianne V. Pastor
                                               (703) 335-7800
                                          FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Williams Industries Inc. Announces
Fiscal 2007 Results;
Increase in Insider Ownership


     Manassas, VA. --- October 23, 2007 --- Williams Industries,
Inc. (WMSI.pk) today announced results for the fiscal year ended
July 31, 2007.  For Fiscal 2007, the company had revenues of
$42,135,000 with a loss of $2,321,000 or $0.63 per share.   This
compares to revenue of $42,118,000 and net income of $93,000 or
$0.03 per share for the prior year.  For the fourth quarter of the
fiscal year, the company had revenue of $11,162,000 with a loss of
$1,150,000 or $0.31 per share.  The loss for Fiscal 2007 includes
a gain of $1.1 million on the sale of the company's Wilmington,
Delaware land.   The Fiscal 2006 profit included a gain of
$969,000 on the sale of 13 acres of land in Prince William County
and Bedford, Virginia to unrelated third parties.

     Both of the company's operating segments, manufacturing and
construction, sustained losses.  The company's stay-in-place
decking subsidiary was profitable, but the profit was more than
offset by losses in the bridge girder subsidiary, which struggled
with material delivery problems, labor inefficiencies, low gross
margin contracts and a shrinking backlog.  The construction
segment operated at a loss as it closed out several older low
gross margin contracts and neared completion of its Woodrow Wilson
Bridge contract, outside of Washington, D.C., which operated at a
loss.   Nearly fifty percent of the total year's losses occurred
in the fourth quarter as Williams Bridge Company dealt with low
volumes attributable to depleted backlog, raw material delivery
delays and low margins on the remaining backlog.   Williams Steel
Erection Company, in the fourth quarter, also recognized
significant losses in completing the previously mentioned Woodrow
Wilson Bridge project.

     The company continues to operate under a Forbearance
Agreement with its primary lender, United Bank.  The remaining
debt of approximately $2.9 million is scheduled to mature on
December 31, 2007.

     In its proxy statement, the company also announced that the
company's directors and officers now control approximately 57.4%
of the company's stock.  The majority of this stock is owned or
controlled by Mr. Frank E. Williams Jr., the company's founder,
who has increased his stake to 50.9%.

     Interested parties are encouraged to read the company's
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings in order to get
specific information.   To access these filings, go to
www.sec.gov.  Once the SEC site has been accessed, click on
"Filings and Forms (EDGAR)".   At the "Search for Company Filings"
prompt, click on "Companies and Other Filers" and enter the
company's ticker symbol "WMSI".   The company will also send a
copy of the 10-K filing and or/proxy to anyone who requests it.

     The company's web site is currently being restructured, so
for additional information, please call Marianne Pastor at the
investor relation's office at (703) 335-7800.