alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of E.K., a child. * From the 29th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C50369.

No. 11-23-00179-CV * January 4, 2024

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we 

affirm the order of the trial court.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 240 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs for veterans through 

the use of sole source contracts by Department of Veterans Affairs 

for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and preferences of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns owned and 

controlled by veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2011 

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to promote jobs 

for veterans through the use of sole source contracts 

by Department of Veterans Affairs for purposes of meeting the contracting goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans Affairs for small business concerns 

owned and controlled by veterans. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 240 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROMOTING JOBS FOR VETERANS THROUGH 

2 THE USE OF SOLE SOURCE CONTRACTS BY 

3 DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR 

4 PURPOSES OF MEETING THE CONTRACTING 

5 GOALS AND PREFERENCES OF THE DEPART6 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR SMALL 

7 BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED AND CON8 TROLLED BY VETERANS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 8127(c) of title 38, 

10 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘may’’ and 

11 inserting ‘‘shall’’. 

12 (b) DEADLINE FOR INTERIM POLICY GUIDANCE.— 

13 By not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment 

14 of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall issue 

15 interim policy guidance to carry out the amendment made 

16 by subsection (a). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13(a)

906 Certification

The certification set forth below is being
submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2017 (the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United
States Code.

Keith Barr, the Chief Executive Officer, and Paul Edgecliffe-Johnson, the Chief Financial Officer of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC, each certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:



|1. | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 March 2018



By:/s/ Keith BarrName: Keith BarrTitle: Chief Executive OfficerBy:/s/ Paul Edgecliffe-JohnsonName: Paul Edgecliffe-JohnsonTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### AMERICAN GRAPHAPHONE CO. v. LEEDS et al.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

November 10, 1896.)

Patent Suits — Preliminary Injunction — Adjudications in Other Circuits.

An adjudication sustaining a patent is not conclusive in favor of granting a preliminary injunction in a suit in another circuit, where a decisive question raised in the latter suit was not contested in the former, and it appears that, in the former, a motion for reargument for the purpose of raising this point has been entertained, but not yet decided.

This was a suit in equity by the American Graphaphone Company against Loring L. Leeds and others for alleged infringement of a patent. The cause was heard on a motion for preliminary injunction.

Philip Mauro and Benjamin F. Lee, for the motion.

B. Dyer, opposed.

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The only question really presented on this motion is whether the adjudication in support of the patent in the district of Illinois is to be taken as controlling as to validity and scope of the claims relied upon, when application is made here for preliminary injunction. If there had been no adjudication, injunction would be refused, in view of the serious dispute as to material issues in the case. Had there been, no proceedings subsequent to such adjudication, it might be that this court would not inquire with much particularity as to the issues raised and the evidence introduced in the earlier suit, when it is admitted, as it is here, that the alleged infringing machines are substantially the same. It appears, however, that in the earlier suit there was no serious contention but that the sound record (of wax or some other material upon which the record was impressed) was the discovery and invention of Bell & Tainter; that the court in that case was convinced that Bell & Tainter were entitled to this invention; that such conviction lay at the basis of the court’s conclusion; and that because of such conviction the court held the particular claims here relied upon to be valid as a combination containing this invention of the sound record. It now appears that it is not only not conceded that this sound record was the invention of Bell & Tainter, but, on the contrary, it is strenuously insisted that it was the invention of Edison. Upon that disputed point a mass of evidence has been produced which should not be passed upon on the hearing of a prelimi*194nary motion. And it further appears that, -when the attention of the court in the earlier case was called to this condition of affairs, it entertained a motion for reargument, which has not yet been decided, and which that court has intimated it will not decide until the determination of this important issue of fact in the main case (in New Jersey). Under these circumstances the case in Illinois must be considered as sub judice, — a matter not yet decided, — and therefore not entitling the complainant to a preliminary injunction as an adjudication sustaining the claims relied on. Motion denied.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00406-CV 

IN RE ROBERT RUIZ GUITIERREZ, RELATOR 

 

OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

 

December 5, 2014 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Relator Robert Ruiz Guitierrez files this original proceeding for writ of habeas 

corpus and contends that the twelve days between the time the trial court orally 

committed him to the Lynn County Jail in Tahoka, Texas, and actually signed a written 

decree ordering his commitment violated his due process rights. We agree and grant 

the writ for habeas relief. 

According to the record, a hearing was held on May 30, 2014. At the hearing, 

Guitierrez was found to be in contempt, and on that same day, the trial court directed 

him to “be jailed in the Lynn County jail until he posts a $70,000.00 cash bond.” The 

written order manifesting that oral pronouncement was signed on June 11, 2014, that is, 

approximately twelve days after Gutierrez was jailed. 
2

A person may not be imprisoned for contempt occurring outside the trial court’s 

presence without a written order of commitment. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d 224, 224 

(Tex. 1988) (orig. proceeding); In re Brown, 114 S.W.3d 7, 9 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, 

orig. proceeding). Nonetheless, a contemnor may be detained for a short, reasonable 

time via an oral directive while the written judgment of contempt and order of 

commitment are prepared and executed. Ex parte Amaya, 748 S.W.2d at 225. 

However, our Supreme Court has held that a two or three day delay between 

commitment under a verbal command and execution of the requisite documents was 

not such a short and reasonable time. Id. This court has held that a four day delay was 

too long. Ex parte Morgan, 886 S.W.2d 829, 832 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, orig. 

proceeding). 

Guitierrez was not found in contempt for an act occurring in the trial court’s 

presence. Thus, the trial court could not jail him for more than a short, reasonable 

period of time without a written order or judgment. The delay between the verbal 

directive and written decree at bar exceeded the periods found excessive and 

unreasonable in both Amaya and Morgan. Thus, Guitierrez’ detention violated due 

process, which violation rendered the judgment and order of commitment void. Ex parte 

Morgan, supra. 

Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus and order Robert 

Ruiz Guitierrez discharged from confinement. 

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice
**Exhibit 12(a)**
**302 CERTIFICATION**
I, Andrew Cosslett, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of InterContinental Hotels Group PLC; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present inall material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report; 4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, orcaused such internal control over financial reporting to be designedunder our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding thereliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting.        Date: March 28, 2008 By:  /s/ Andrew Cosslett    Name:  Andrew Cosslett    Title:  Director and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20519]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2507-000]

RE Gaskell West LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
RE Gaskell West LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with 
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 10, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
[email protected]. or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 20, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20519 Filed 9-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certificate of Principal Executive Officer

pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as adopted pursuant to Section 906

of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of CNET Networks, Inc. (CNET Networks) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Neil M. Ashe, Chief Executive Officer and Director of CNET Networks, Inc., certify, 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 Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of CNET Networks.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 2, 2007



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Neil M. Ashe                    
|Neil M. Ashe                        
|Director and Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CNET Networks and
will be retained by CNET Networks and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2947 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2947

  To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the 
United States in certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for 
       the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 15, 2011

 Mr. Cravaack introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the 
United States in certain land conveyed by the United States in 1950 for 
       the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota.

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

SECTION 1. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST AND USE CONDITIONS, COOK 
              COUNTY AIRPORT, COOK COUNTY, MINNESOTA.

    (a) Release of Reversionary Interest Required.--The Secretary of 
Agriculture, acting on behalf of the United States, shall release, 
without consideration--
            (1) the conditions imposed on the use of the parcel of land 
        originally conveyed by the Secretary pursuant to section 16 of 
        the Federal Airport Act (Act of May 13, 1946, ch. 251, 60 Stat. 
        170) to the State of Minnesota by deed executed May 31, 1950, 
        for the establishment of an airport in Cook County, Minnesota; 
        and
            (2) the reversionary interest retained by the United States 
        in connection with such conditions.
    (b) Instrument of Release.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
execute and file in the appropriate office a deed of release, amended 
deed, or other appropriate instrument reflecting the release of the 
reversionary interest and conditions under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2737 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to make stillborn children eligible 

for optional life insurance coverage. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2011 

Mr. BURTON of Indiana introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to make stillborn 

children eligible for optional life insurance coverage. 

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 ‘‘Kaytlynn Noggle Fed5 eral Life Insurance Equity Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF STILLBORN CHILDREN FOR PUR7 POSES OF LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENTS. 

8 Section 8701(d)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, 

9 is amended— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2737 IH

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(other than a stillborn child)’’; 

2 and 

3 (2) by inserting ‘‘stillborn child,’’ after ‘‘adopt4 ed child,’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2144

DEMARK DIXON,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

MR. TOM RAMIREZ, US Probation Officer, acting in his own 

individual capacity, but under color of Federal Authority; 

HALLS AUTOMOTIVE, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District 

Judge. (2:12-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM)

Submitted: January 14, 2013 Decided: February 12, 2013

Before DAVIS, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

DeMark Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van Valkenburg, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Randall 

Clair Lenhart, Jr., KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

DeMark Dixon appeals the district court’s orders

dismissing his complaint for failing to state a claim and 

denying his Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Dixon v. Ramirez, No. 

2:12-cv-00137-RAJ-TEM (E.D. Va. July 18, 2012; Oct. 1, 2012). 

We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 13.2  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 20-F of Luxottica Group S.p.A. (the Company) for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Enrico Cavatorta, 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/ ENRICO CAVATORTAEnrico CavatortaChief Financial OfficerDated:   April 29, 2014  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.