alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Rosehurst Homeowners Association v. Hughes Natural Gas, Inc. and

Real Provencher

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00601

- CV

Trial court case number: 980,933

Trial cou rt: Co Civil Ct at Law No 2 of Harris County

Appellees Hughes Natural Gas, Inc. and Real Provencher filed a n unopposed motion to

reset oral argument in this cause. Oral argument was originally scheduled for April 28, 2015.

We grant the Appellees’ unoppos ed motion to reset oral argument. Oral argument will be

rescheduled and an amended submission notice will be sent to the parties

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the C ourt

Date: April 14, 2015
Exhibit 13.3  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 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stefano Grassi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), 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.  By:
/s/ STEFANO GRASSIStefano GrassiChief Financial Officer  Dated: April 28, 2017  This written statement 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.  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-17-0000552

20-MAR-2019

08:49 AM
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2677 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 

regulations to reduce helicopter noise pollution in residential areas of 

Los Angeles County, California, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 28, 2011 

Mr. BERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to issue regulations to reduce helicopter noise 

pollution in residential areas of Los Angeles County, 

California, 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 ‘‘Los Angeles Residen5 tial Helicopter Noise Relief Act of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER NOISE RELIEF. 

7 (a) REGULATIONS REQUIRED.—Not later than 1 year 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2677 IH

1 of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue regula2 tions for helicopter operations in Los Angeles County, 

3 California, that include requirements relating to the flight 

4 paths and altitudes associated with such operations to re5 duce helicopter noise pollution in residential areas. 

6 (b) EXEMPTIONS PERMITTED.—In issuing regula7 tions under subsection (a), the Administrator may exempt 

8 helicopter operations related to emergency, law enforce9 ment, or military activities from requirements described 

10 in such subsection. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") certify that:

     1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report; and

     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
Company as of, and for, the period presented in this quarterly report.

Date:  August 8, 2008

/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic
-------------------------
Borivoje Vukadinovic
Principal Executive Officer


/s/ Borivoje Vukadinovic
------------------------
Borivoje Vukadinovic
Principal Financial Officer
| (logo)  WELLS FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling andServicing Agreement datedas of August 1, 2013, by and among RBS COMMERCIAL FUNDING INC., asDepositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer,CWCAPITALASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, asGeneral Special Servicer, NCB, FSB, as NCB Master Servicer and Co-op SpecialServicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC., as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administratorand as Custodian, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series WFRBS 2013-C15 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of thisAgreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial MortgageServices do hereby certify that:

 

1.A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”) , andof its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day of February2018.

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive VicePresident

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO 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 of FS Investment Corporation III (the Company) for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Form 10-K), Michael C. Forman, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Edward T. Gallivan, Jr., as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 my knowledge:



| |  |  | the Form 10-K of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|Dated: March 10, 2017      
|                           
|/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMAN      
|Michael C. Forman          
|Chief Executive Officer    
|                           
|/s/ EDWARD T. GALLIVAN, JR.
|Edward T. Gallivan, Jr.    
|Chief Financial Officer
#### Frederick L. PITCHFORD, Appellant, v. Daniel Madden TURBITT, United States Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Judge, Appellee.

No. 06-4140.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 28, 2007.

Filed: Jan. 14, 2008.

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Frederick Pitchford appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his lawsuit against United States Merit Systems Protection Board administrative judge Daniel Turbitt. Upon careful review of the record, *see Casazza v. Kiser,*313 F.3d 414, 418 (8th Cir.2002) (de novo standard of review), we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its well-reasoned opinion, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1


 DYNAMEX INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
 (in thousands except per share data)
 (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                Three months ended              Nine months ended
                                                     April 30,                        April 30,
                                         -------------------------------   --------------------------------
                                              1999             1998             1999              1998
                                         --------------   --------------   --------------    --------------
                                                           (As restated)                      (As restated)
<S>                                      <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>
Net income (loss)                        $          365   $          900   $         (989)   $        2,907
                                         ==============   ==============   ==============    ==============

Weighted average common
   shares outstanding                            10,085            7,412           10,075             7,395

Common share equivalents related
   to options and warrants                          137              217               --               195
                                         --------------   --------------   --------------    --------------

Common shares and common share
   equivalents                                   10,222            7,629           10,075             7,590
                                         ==============   ==============   ==============    ==============

Common stock price used under
   treasury stock method                 $         2.99   $        11.89   $         5.62    $         9.50
                                         ==============   ==============   ==============    ==============

Net income (loss) per common share:
   Basic                                 $         0.04   $         0.12   $        (0.10)   $         0.39
                                         ==============   ==============   ==============    ==============

   Diluted                               $         0.04   $         0.12   $        (0.10)   $         0.38
                                         ==============   ==============   ==============    ==============
</TABLE>
Order filed April 12 , 20 12

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00 068

- CR

____________ CARROLL DWAYNE LEBLANC , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 08

- 04633



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant has made known to this Court his desire to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967);
Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969).
Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 252nd Dis trict Court to afford appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure; that the clerk of that court furnish the record to appellant within 15 days of the date of this
order ; that the clerk of that court certify to thi s c ourt the date on which delivery of the2

record to appellant is made; and that appellant f ile his pro se brief with this c ourt within thirty days of that date.

PER CURIAM
Amendment Number 2 to Consolidated Edison Stock Purchase Plan



 Exhibit 10.1.4.3 

AMENDMENT #2 
 TO

 THE CONSOLIDATED EDISON INC. STOCK PURCHASE PLAN 
 Effective June 30, 2010 







 Pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Trustees of Consolidated Edison Company of New York,
Inc. (“CECONY”), the Board of Directors of Orange and Rockland, Utilities, Inc. (“O&R”) and the Board of Directors of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (“CEI”) adopted on May 18, 2009, and June 18, 2009, the
undersigned hereby approves the amendments to The Consolidated Edison, Inc, Stock Purchase Plan, as set forth below: 
  

	 	1.	The PREAMBLE is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 

 Effective June 30, 2010, the Plan has been amended to restore prospectively the temporary reduction in the match contributed by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for its management
employees and board members which commenced on July 1, 2009, and ended on June 30, 2010, and the temporary reduction in the match contributed by Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., for its management employees and board members which
commenced on August 1, 2009, and ended on June 30, 2010. 
  

	 	2.	ARTICLE I, Definitions, is amended by replacing the current definition of Austerity Period with the following: 


Austerity Period for CECONY means the period beginning on July 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2010. Austerity
Period for Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. means the period beginning on August 1, 2009, and ending on June 30, 2010. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this 17th day of December, 2010. 
  

	
	
	/s/ Mary Adamo
	Mary Adamo
	Plan Director
	The Consolidated Edison, Inc. Stock Purchase Plan
	and
	Vice President – Human Resources
	Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.



  
 2
Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Ronald Rosner, certify that: 1.
I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Schick          Technologies, Inc.;  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;  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 the 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 change 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 control over financial          reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the          registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent          function):  a)
all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses 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 control over financial
reporting.  Date:  November 9, 2005 /S/ Ronald Rosner

[Signature]
Director of Finance and Administration
(Principal Financial officer)  16
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR DANIEL BOLANES-BLANCO,

a.k.a. Oscar Bolanos,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-71836

Agency No. A029-769-354

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted April 20, 2011** 

Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Daniel Bolanes-Blanco, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions

pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his

motion to reopen. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We grant the

petition for review and remand.

FILED

APR 22 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-71836

The BIA denied Bolanes-Blanco’s motion to reopen without the benefit of

our decision in Coyt v. Holder, 593 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2010), in which we

concluded that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not apply to cause the withdrawal of a

motion to reopen filed by a petitioner who subsequently has been removed from

the United States. See Coyt, 593 F.3d at 906-07. We remand in light of this

intervening case law for the BIA to reconsider Bolanes-Blanco’s motion,

including, if necessary, whether the 90-day filing limitation should be equitably

tolled.

We construe Bolanes-Blanco’s letter of January 26, 2009, as a motion to

supplement the record. So construed, the motion is denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6805** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v.
TERRY RANDALL BELK , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. Henry M. Herlong, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 8:11

- cr - 00337

- HMH

- 1; 8:13

- cv - 00318

- HMH )

Submitted : September 26 , 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
.
Terry Randall Belk, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM : Terry Randall Belk seeks to appeal the district court’s order s denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2013 ) motion and his motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The se order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ) ; Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debata ble or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Belk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant his motion to take judicial notice of Alleyne v. United
States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), and Descamps v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2276 (2013), * deny a certificate of appealability , and

* We conclude that, even in light of these two recent Supreme Court cases, Belk has failed to meet the standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.3 dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
f acts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2698 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2698

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden the special rules 
 for certain governmental plans under section 105(j) to include plans 
                 established by political subdivisions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2011

Mr. Reichert (for himself and Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to broaden the special rules 
 for certain governmental plans under section 105(j) to include plans 
                 established by political subdivisions.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF APPLICATION OF SPECIAL RULES FOR CERTAIN 
              GOVERNMENTAL PLANS TO INCLUDE PLANS ESTABLISHED BY 
              POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 105(j)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or established by or on behalf of a 
        State or political subdivision thereof'' after ``public 
        retirement system'', and
            (2) by inserting ``or 501(c)(9)'' after ``section 115'' in 
        subparagraph (B) thereof.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to payments after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```