alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 285TH JUDICIA L DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETI NGS:

Before our Cou rt of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on November 24, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of D. M., A Child, Appellant

V.

No. 04

- 14

- 00399

- CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2012

- PA

- 02386

was determined, and ther ein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:



## In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against Appellant in relation to this appeal be cause she qualifies as indigent. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on February 4, 2015

. KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLE RK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853BILL OF COSTS


### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04

- 14

- 00399

- CV

In the Interest of D. M. , A Child

v.

(NO. 2012

- PA

- 02386 IN 285TH JUDIC IAL DISTRICT COURT O F BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

**Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judg ment issued by this Court.** 

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE , CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXA S, showing the charges and payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth District of Texas, this February 4, 2015

.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
---

Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO 
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
    OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Alejandro Ochoa , Chief Executive Officer of Tower One Wireless Corp. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1)
      the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 (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 results of operations of the Company. Dated: September 8, 2017 /s/ Alejandro OchoaAlejandro OchoaChief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Tower One Wireless Corp. and will be retained by Tower One Wireless Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 3


---
f1012ga2ex10i_europa8.htm


Exhibit 10.1


 


Description of Verbal Management Consulting Agreement Between Europa Acquisition VI, Inc. and Peter Reichard.












On July 30, 2010, Mr. Reichard, the President and sole director of the Company, verbally agreed to provide funding to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations for the next 12 months and beyond, until the Company is engaged in business activities that provide cash flow sufficient to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations. We currently have no written contractual agreements in place with Mr. Reichard to provide such funding. During the next 12 months, Mr. Reichard has agreed to cover costs including, but not limited to, the filing of Exchange Act reports, and consummating an acquisition. At this time we do not have the funds to pay for these filings and do not have any written agreement to raise funds to cover these expenses. However, we believe we will be able to meet these costs with funds provided by Mr. Reichard. At such time that the Company has the ability to cover the costs of investigating and analyzing business combinations with cash flow from operations, Mr. Reichard will no longer be obligated to cover such costs.  The Company not currently undertaking any steps to repay Mr. Reichard, but the understanding is that he will be repaid when the Company is sold.
#### Yolanda Magriz, Appellant, v St. Barnabas Hospital et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted January 28, 2008;

decided March 18, 2008

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that pertains to defendants Homer, Glenn and Zambito, denied; motion, insofar as it otherwise seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that the remainder of such order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
CERTIFICATION





I, Aikaterini Cozza, certify that:








1.    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The J.G. Wentworth Company; and





2.  Based on my knowledge, this report 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.








Date: December 28, 2017/s/ Aikaterini CozzaAikaterini CozzaInterim Chief Financial Officer(Interim Principal Financial Officer)
Non-Employee Director Compensation Plan for 2008/2009 Service Year



 EXHIBIT 10.17.1 
 NON EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PLAN 
 2008/2009 SERVICE YEAR 
  

			
	Total Compensation:	  	$86,000, paid as follows:
		
	 Retainer:
	  	$36,000; paid monthly, in arrears
		
	 Attendance:
	  	$20,000; $5,000 paid following each personal attendance at the quarterly board and committee meetings
		
	 Stock Award*:
	  	$30,000 in value**
		
	 Option Grant:
	  	2,000 shares; granted June 1 at the beginning of the service year and vesting at the following annual meeting so long as the director served his or her full term; term of option is six years
after grant; option must be exercised within 30 days following end of base service
		
	Mid-Term Appointments	  	
		
		  	The cash retainer and equity grants will be prorated for the service year with a new director given full credit for a partial month’s service. The stock option exercise price, however,
will be the fair market value as of the date of grant, and the number of shares issued in the stock awards will be the based upon the market value of the shares at the close of business on May 30, 2008

  

	*	the number of shares is determined by dividing the market price per share at the close of business on May 30, 2008, (the day before the service year begins, which was $6.83 per
share), into $30,000, which shares will be issued on or about June 1, 2009 and subject to completion of service for that service year. 

  

	**	for Audit Committee Chair, this amount is $32,500.
##### 



Tenth Amendment to the  Sterling Chemicals, Inc.  Amended and Restated Hourly Paid Employees Pension Plan
 Whereas Corporation Existing Plan
 Whereas
 Whereas, Amendment
 Now, Therefore
 Amendment of Section 1
 Cessation of Benefit Accruals
 Amendment of Section 3.3 of the Existing Plan
 Early Retirement Date
 (a)
    
    for a participant who elects to commence payments while he continues in
employment with his Employer before his Normal Retirement Date, the first day of
the month following the later of (i) the month in which he has both attained age 62
years and is vested pursuant to Section 2.2 or (ii) the month in which he makes
written application for an early retirement benefit; or(b)
    
    for a participant who does not elect to commence payments while he continues
in employment with his Employer, the first day of the month following the later




---



##### 



of (i) the month in which he has both attained age 55 years and is vested pursuant to
Section 2.2 or (ii) the month in which he makes written application for an early
retirement benefit.
 Amendment of Section 4.4 of the Existing Plan
  Amendment of Section 10 of the Existing Plan
 Election Under Section 3.3(1)
 Effect of Amendments
 Binding Effect
 Severability
 Governing Law To The Extent Not Superseded By The Laws Of The United
States, This Amendment Shall Be Construed and Enforced in Accordance With, and
the Rights of the Parties Shall Be Governed By, the Internal Laws of the State of Texas, Without
Reference to Principles of Conflicts of Law.
 -2-




---



##### 



In Witness Whereof
 Sterling Chemicals, Inc./s/ Richard K. CrumpRichard K. Crump, President and ChiefExecutive Officer -3-
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2013 Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc. (the
Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jason Kulas, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Jason KulasName: Jason KulasTitle: President and Chief Financial Officer


March 5, 2014

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 24-0005 

IN RE MOTION OF DAVID J. TALLEY FOR 

ADMISSION TO THE BAR OF THE STATE OF 

MONTANA 

ORDER 

David J. Talley has moved for admission to the Bar of the State of Montana pursuant 

to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar Admissions 

Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the Commission on 

Character and Fitness has certified that Talley has provided the necessary documentation 

and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion under Rule V. 

Therefore, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and 

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions 

Administrator, David J. Talley may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State of 

Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the Clerk 

of the Montana Supreme Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State 

Bar of Montana " 

DATED this 9 - day of January, 2024. 

c 

JAN 0 9 2::'+ 

Bowen Greenwood 

Chief Justice 

,rt 

01/09/2024

Case Number: PR 24-0005
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3360

___________

Edvin Gonzalez-Hernandez, *

*

Petitioner, *

*

v. * Petition for Review from the

* Board of Immigration Appeals.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General *

of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: May 1, 2012

Filed: May 4, 2012

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Guatemalan citizen Edvin Gonzalez-Hernandez petitions for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an immigration judge’s denial

of asylum and withholding of removal. After careful review, we conclude that

substantial evidence supportsthe denials of asylum and withholding of removal. See

Davila-Mejia v. Mukasey, 531 F.3d 624, 627-29 (8th Cir. 2008) (standard of review;

discussing claimant’s burden of proof in asylum context; when alien failsto establish

eligibility for asylum, he necessarily cannot meet more rigorous standard of proof for

withholding of removal). Accordingly, we deny the petition. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed March 15, 2017.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D15- 1544

Lower Tribunal No. 13-28096

________________



### Brett Weinberg,

Appellant,

vs.



### GEICO General Insurance Company,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Rosa I.

Rodriguez

, Judge.

Bushell Law, P.A., and Daniel A. Bushell (Fort Lauderdale); Scott J.

Edwards, P.A., and Scott Edwards (Boca Raton); The Law Offices of Brett A.

Weinberg, and Brett A. Weinberg, for appellant.

Young, Bill, Boles, Palmer & Duke, P.A., and B. Richard Young, Adam A.

Duke, Michel A. Morgan and Derek L. Veliz, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.We affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment. Because Appellee

GEICO concedes Appellant Brett Weinberg’s entitlement to (but not the amount

of) fees based on GEICO’s confession of judgment, and because the trial court’s

summary judgment retained jurisdiction to address the parties’ claims for fees, we

do not reach the fee issue raised by Appellant.

Affirmed.

2
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

      Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of
ACG Holdings, Inc. and American Color Graphics, Inc., (collectively the
"Company") that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 28, 2004                          /s/ Stephen M. Dyott
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Stephen M. Dyott
                                                 Chief Executive Officer

Date: June 28, 2004                          /s/ Patrick W. Kellick
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Patrick W. Kellick
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-
68084, 33-83276, 33-91150 and 333-58219 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement
Nos. 33-56706, 33-61884, 33-80945, 333-36171, 333-36175, 333-69463, 333-84511
and 333-84507 on Form S-8 of Creative BioMolecules, Inc. report dated February
15, 2000 (which expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an emphasis of a
matter in a paragraph relating to the potential merger described in Note 13),
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Creative BioMolecules, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
-------------------------
    Deloitte & Touche LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
June 15, 2000
#### Lloyd E. RABJOHN, Plaintiff, v. MINUTE MAID CORPORATION, a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 18, 1958.

*196Humphrey Statter, New York City, for plaintiff.

Kenyon & Kenyon, New York City, for defendant.

CASHIN, District Judge.

This is a motion by plaintiff for an order either striking defendant’s responses to plaintiff’s request for admissions served pursuant to Rule 36(a), 28 U.S.C.A., and establishing, as admitted, the facts set forth in the request, or directing defendant to serve an amended response in compliance with Rule 36(a).

I do not deem it necessary to review, in detail, the request for admissions and the responses served thereto. There is not before me any objections to the request, as is provided for in Rule 36(a). Thus, the propriety of the request is not in issue. Similarly, there is not properly before me the adequacy of defendant’s responses. Rule 36(a) specifically provides for a method whereby the party upon whom the request is served may test whether the requests are proper. However, the Rule is completely silent as to any complementary method available for testing the responses. Rather, Rule 37 (c) provides for the sanction in the event admissions of fact are not made and the refusal to admit is without substantial reason. The method available to the party serving the request which gives efficacy to Rule 36(a) is that the trial Court may order the party not admitting the facts to pay to the other party the reasonable expenses incurred in proving such facts, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

I am not unaware of the fact that there can be found cases holding otherwise. See e. g. Heng Hsin Co. v. Stern, Morgenthau & Co., Inc., 20 F.R. Serv. 36a.52, Case 1 (S.D.N.Y.1954) and United States Plywood Corp. v. Hudson Lumber Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y.1954, 127 F.Supp. 489. However, I believe the correct interpretation of Rules 36 and 37 is as indicated above. This conclusion is buttressed by the history of Rule 36 itself. The Rule, as originally promulgated, did not make any provision for objections to the request for admission itself. In interpreting the Rule the courts reached varying conclusions as to whether there was any method available for testing the propriety of the request. See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed. § 36.-05. The amendment of 1946 specifically provided for such a method. However, no provision was inserted at that time specifically providing for a method of testing the propriety of responses. If the rulemakers, presumably well aware of the problem, failed to set out any such specific procedure, they must be deemed to have intended that no procedure would be available. See also 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed. § 36.06 at p. 2723.

The motion is denied.

It is so ordered.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2548 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2548

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 29, 2011

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 6310 North University Street in Peoria, Illinois, as the ``Charles 
              `Chip' Lawrence Chan Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. CHARLES ``CHIP'' LAWRENCE CHAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6310 North University Street in Peoria, Illinois, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Charles `Chip' Lawrence Chan Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Charles 
`Chip' Lawrence Chan Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO 
    18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 
    OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Abbey Abdiye, Chief Financial Officer of Tower One Wireless Corp. (the “Company”), certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (1)
      the annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2016 (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 results of operations of the Company. Dated: September 8, 2017 /s/ Abbey AbdiyeAbbey AbdiyeChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Tower One Wireless Corp. and will be retained by Tower One Wireless Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. 4


---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Javier Galindo Pacheco v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00156-CR

Trial court case number: 1341972

Trial court: 262nd Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and brief 

concluding that the above-referenced appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967). Appellant, acting pro se, has filed a motion 

requesting access to a copy of the appellate record for use in preparing his response to 

appointed counsel’s brief and a 30-day extension of time to file his response. See Kelly v. 

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 315, 318–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We grant the motion and order the trial court clerk, no later than 10 days from 

the date of this order, to provide a copy of the record, including the clerk’s record, the 

reporter’s record, and any supplemental records, to the appellant. The trial court clerk 

shall further certify to this Court, within 15 days of the date of this order, the date upon 

which delivery of the record to the appellant is made.

Finally, appellant’s response, if any, to his appointed counsel’s brief shall be filed 

within 45 days of the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura C. Higley

  

Date: February 26, 2015