alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00322-CR

Orlando Campos

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Trial Cause No. B-15-2049-0-CR-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Court 

orders the appeal DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION in accordance with its 

opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 9, 2018
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 Amarillo Biosciences, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned,
in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.


Date: August 23, 2004         By: /s/ Joseph M. Cummins
      ---------------            -----------------------------------------------
                                  Joseph M. Cummins
                                  President, Chief Executive Officer
                                  and Chief Financial Officer


                                       14
## TEEATTOBNEY OF TEXAS

**March 11,**  **1963**
Honorable Joe N. Chapman, Chairman Committee onJudiciary House ofRepresentatives Austin, Texas Opinion No. C-34

Dear Mr. Chapman: Re: Constitutionality of House Bill 558of the 58thLegislature validating certain contracts, warrants, refunding bonds and related proceedings of cities and counties. You have requested our opinion on this proposed legislation as to its constitutionality.

House Bill 558 is, in substance, similar toHouse Bill 2,60,Chapter 126,Acts of the 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 1961, codified by Vernon asArticle 2368a-7, which was approved by theGovernor of Texas onMay 15, 1961, and which validated, under certain conditions, certain city and county contracts, scrip and timewarrants, refunding bonds and certain related proceedings. It isevident, therefore, **why** Rouse Bill 558 is limited tomatters occurring since apreceding validating act of like effe'ctwas approved, andwe find nothing repugnant to the Constitution of Texas in this feature of the bill. House Bill 558 is substantially identical with a lengthy series of validating acts pertaining to the issuance of warrants, and related actions, by cities and counties inTexas. These statutes are codified **as Articles**  2368a-2 to 2368a-8, both inclusive, V.C.S.

As to thevalidating provisions ofHouse Bill 558, the power of **the** Legislature to enact such curative statutes iswell settled. **Moreover** etheLegislature **may**validate anything that -145-Hon. Joe N. Chapman, page 2 (C-34)

it couldhave authorized in the first instance. Tom Green County v.Moodv, 116Tex. 299, 289 S.W.381 (1926); Pvote Independent School District v.Dver, 34 S.W. 2d 578 (Tex.Comm.App. 1931): Bisfoot Independent School District v. Genard, 116 S.W. 2d 804 (Tex.Civ,App. 1938, affirmed 133 Tex. 368, 129 S.W. 2d 1213). Sections land 2except from their application the described proceedings by 'I.. .any county with apopulation in excess of three hundred and fifty thousand (350,000). according to the last preceding federal census . . ." This exception isobviously made because Section 2ofArticle 2368a. V.C.S., the procedural statute governing the same subject, provides for the samepopulation classification. It isour opinion that this exception isreasonable and affords a fairbasis of classification. Miller v.El Paso County, 136 Tex. 370, 150 S.W.2d 1000 (1941);Clark v. Finley, 93Tex. 171, 54 S.W. 343 (1899). We have examined the title and the other provisions of House Bill 558 and are of the opinion that they do not violate the Constitution of Texas, and that the entire bill is constitutional. SUMMARY

House Bill 558of the **58th** Legislature validating certain contracts, scrip warrants, **time warrants,**  refunding bonds, and related proceedings, of cities and counties is constitutional.

Yours very truly, WAGGGNER CARR

Assistant HWM-S

**-146-**Hon. Joe N. Chapman, page 3 (C-34)

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman Robert Lewis Albert Pruitt Dudley **McCalla** APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Stanton Stone

-147-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0421

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

HOANG VINH PHAM,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including February 3, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 24 2020

12/24/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0421
Exhibit 32.1

Certification
under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Henry E. Gemino, as Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, of Profile Technologies, Inc.,
hereby certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
September 30, 2006 (the Quarterly Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Profile Technologies, Inc.

Date:   November
13, 2006

| | /s/   
Henry E. GeminoHenry E. GeminoChief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 31.1

ICONIX BRAND GROUP, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14 OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Neil Cole, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual
Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2014 of Iconix Brand Group, Inc.; 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: April 30, 2015                           
|                                               
|/s/ Neil Cole                                  
|Neil Cole
President and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Patrick W. Kellick, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of ACG Holdings, Inc. and AmericanColor Graphics, Inc., (collectively the “registrant”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.        Date:    August 31, 2007 /s/  Patrick W. Kellick   Patrick W. Kellick   Chief Financial Officer   
96
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 Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4337-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated September 10, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued September 11, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 10, 2017.
      ( print page 44196)    
Clay, Duval, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns Counties for Individual Assistance (already designated for debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-20145 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE ANNUAL
REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (D) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
FOR THE ANNUAL PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,180,417
<SECURITIES>                                 2,074,638
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,439,024
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,728,563
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          298,395
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,002,411
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,728,563
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,816
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               583,953
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,728,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,728,255)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,728,255)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (72.43)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (72.43)<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS IS NET LOSS PER $1,000 LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNIT.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN K. PARKER,

Petitioner,

v.

WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY,

No. 96-1588

INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Benefits Review Board.

(95-1747-BLA)

Submitted: September 5, 1996

Decided: September 18, 1996

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges,

and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE AND RUNDLE, L. C., Pineville,

West Virginia, for Petitioner. Ann B. Rembrandt, JACKSON &

KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Gary K.

Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Parker, a former coal miner, appeals from a decision of the

Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming an administrative law

judge's (ALJ) denial of his application for black lung benefits. In his

ultimate decision in this case, the ALJ found the evidence of record

insufficient to establish invocation of the interim presumption of entitlement pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a) (1996). On appeal, Parker's only challenge to the ALJ's finding of no invocation is his

contention that the ALJ erred by failing to invoke the presumption

based on the pulmonary function studies, pursuant to subsection (a)(2)

of section 727.

Five of six valid studies of record produced non-qualifying values

under the regulations, but the most recent study was qualifying. Parker contends that the ALJ should have credited the most recent study

over the remaining studies, because pneumoconiosis is a progressive

disease and the most recent study most accurately reflects the status

of the miner's condition at the time of the hearing. It is clear, however, that the ALJ was not required to automatically accord greater

weight to more recent evidence, see Adkins v. Director, Office of

Workers' Compensation Programs, 958 F.2d 49, 52 (4th Cir. 1992),

and that the ALJ could rationally find that because five of six valid

studies were non-qualifying, Parker failed to establish invocation by

a preponderance of such evidence. See Gray v. Director, Office of

Workers' Compensation Programs, 943 F.2d 913, 920-21 (4th Cir.

1991).

As substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding of no invocation, Parker's arguments on appeal concerning rebuttal are moot. See

§ 727.203. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

 2
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2013, by and among Banc of America Merrill Lynch Commercial Mortgage Inc., as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Certificate Administrator, Certificate Registrar, Authenticating Agent and Custodian, Midland Loan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer, Situs Holdings, LLC, as Trust Advisor and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2013-C11 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 13.9 of the Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

  | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|--------------------------------|------------------------------------|
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-0677

_____________________________

JERMAINE R. REED,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

January 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and WOLF and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized 

motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jermaine R. Reed, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel B. Steinberg, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
(logo)**Prudential**

**PrudentialAsset Resources**

PrudentialMortgage Capital Company

2100Ross Avenue, Suite 2500, Dallas TX 75201

Tel214-777-4500

 

Abusiness of Prudential Financial, Inc.

 

 

WellsFargo Bank, National Association

CommercialMortgage Servicing

MACD1086

550South Tryon Street, 14th Floor

Charlotte,North Carolina 28202

Attention:Asset Manager

 

RE:**RBS 2013****‐****C15**

Period:**January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017(the “Reporting Period”)**

** **

 

**AnnualCompliance Statement**

 

I,Joni Brown‐Haas, in mycapacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.(the “Company”) hereby certify with regard to the Company’s role as Sub‐Servicer undertheSub‐ServicingAgreement, (the “Agreement”) dated as of August 1, 2013, pertaining to theabove‐referencedcertificates, that:

 

(i)a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the periodnoted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement duringthe reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledall its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period, and

 

(iii)to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilledits obligations under its sub‐servicing agreement in all material respects, and

 

(iv)the Company has maintained an effective internal control system over theservicing of mortgage loans including the Loans serviced by the Company, and

 

(v)the Company has not received any notice regarding qualification, or challengingthe status of the Lower Tier REMIC or the Upper Tier REMIC as a REMIC, from theIRS or any other governmental agency or body.

 

Effectiveas of 2/22/2018

 

 

/s/Joni Brown-Haas

JoniBrown‐Haas

Presidentand Managing Director

PrudentialAsset Resources, Inc.