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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2950 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment 

contracts between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy 

District. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2009 

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

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of repayment contracts between the United States 

and the Uintah Water Conservancy District. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PREPAYMENT OF CERTAIN REPAYMENT CON4 TRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND 

5 THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DIS6 TRICT. 

7 The Secretary shall allow for prepayment of the re8 payment contract no. 6–05–01–00143 between the United 

9 States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District dated 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2950 IH

1 June 3, 1976, and supplemented and amended on Novem2 ber 1, 1985, and on December 30, 1992, providing for 

3 repayment of municipal and industrial water delivery fa4 cilities for which repayment is provided pursuant to such 

5 contract, under terms and conditions similar to those used 

6 in implementing section 210 of the Central Utah Project 

7 Completion Act (Public Law 102–575), as amended. The 

8 prepayment— 

9 (1) may be provided in several installments to 

10 reflect substantial completion of the delivery facili11 ties being prepaid; 

12 (2) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost 

13 allocation; 

14 (3) may not be adjusted on the basis of the 

15 type of prepayment financing used by the District; 

16 and 

17 (4) shall be made such that total repayment is 

18 made not later than September 30, 2019. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                              L Q CORPORATION, INC.
                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 L Q Corporation, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William J. Fox,
Chief Executive Officer of 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:

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.

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.





Dated:  August 13, 2005


                                 --------------------------------
                                 William J. Fox
                                 Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

Auspex Systems, Inc
Form 10K - Yr ended June 30, 2000


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                    DOMESTIC OR
                                     BUSINESS OR TYPE                         DATE ACQUIRED      FOREIGN COUNTRY OF
NAME                                   OF OPERATION         % OF OWNERSHIP      OR CREATED         INCORPORATION
-----                                ----------------       --------------    -------------      ------------------
<S>                                  <C>                    <C>               <C>                <C>
Auspex Systems Limited               Sales & Support           100%              8/23/93         UK
Auspex Systems, S.A.                 Sales & Support           100%             12/23/93         France
Auspex Systems, GMBH                 Sales & Support           100%              9/21/93         Germany
Auspex KK                            Sales & Support           100%              3/10/98         Japan
Auspex A/P PTE LTD                   Sales & Support           100%              5/16/00         Singapore
Auspex International, Inc            Holding Company           100%              12/1/93         Domestic
Auspex Foreign Sales Corporation     Foreign Sales             100%               8/3/92         Barbados, West Indies
Alphatronix, Inc.*                   Engineering Development   100%              6/30/97         Domestic
</TABLE>

* Alphatronix, Inc. became inactive 8/30/99.
Exhibit 31.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-15(e) OR 15d-15(e) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jeffrey Hoffman, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of Total Identity Corp.;





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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusion 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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and;





5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.








September 28, 2004


By:/s/ Jeffrey HoffmanPrincipal Accounting Officer
**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 Quarterly Report of Altair Nanotechnologies Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
“Report”), I, Edward H. Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations of the Company.








/s/
                Edward H. DickinsonEdward
                H. Dickinson, Chief Financial Officer


November 8, 2006
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edwardo Pagan, Appellant.

[670 NYS2d 116]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered October 17, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court improperly directed closure of the courtroom during the testimony of an undercover police officer to whom the defendant sold heroin during a so-called “buy and bust” operation. However, we find that the testimony of the officer at the *Hinton*hearing established the necessary link between the officer’s fear for his safety and his open court testimony *(see, People v Martinez,*82 NY2d 436). The officer testified that he still worked in the same precinct and neighborhood of the defendant’s arrest in similar operations *(see, People v Ayala,*90 NY2d 490).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the closure was not overly broad as it was limited solely to the testimony of the undercover officer *(see, People v Ayala, supra).*Moreover, the *313record also reflects that the court implicitly and explicitly explored other alternatives to complete closure *(see, People v Ayala, supra).*Finally, the court’s decision stated factual findings adequate to support such a closure *(see, People v Martinez, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 1, 2016

a0525

Order 

Clerk

June 1, 2016

151549

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151549

COA: 325140

Presque Isle CC: 05-092269-FC

GARY EDWARD DAVENPORT,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2015 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46344-46345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21361]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice for Land Release; Skagit Regional Airport, 
Burlington, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is being given that the FAA is considering a proposal 
from the Port of Skagit County to release approximately 125 acres of 
airport land

[[Page 46345]]

from Surplus Property restrictions. The property consists of 45 
buildable acres and 76.5 acres of protected wetland/buffer as well as 
road and drainage improvements. Environmental analysis has been 
completed. Lots range from 1.7 acres to 8.8 acres in size. The property 
is located within the Bayview Ridge Subarea Plan. The release will 
allow the expansion of industrial facilities adjacent to the existing 
Paccar operation.

DATES: Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication 
of this notice in the Federal Register. Written comments can be 
provided to Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection Specialist, 
Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Suite 250, 
Renton, WA 98057-3356.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Rogerson, Planning and 
Environmental Administrator, Port of Skagit, 15400 Airport Drive, 
Burlington, WA 98223; or Ms. Cayla D. Morgan, Environmental Protection 
Specialist, Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 
Suite 250, Renton, WA, 98057-3356, (425) 227-2653. Documents reflecting 
this FAA action may be reviewed at the above locations.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 
47151(d), and 47153(c), the FAA is considering a proposal from the Port 
of Skagit to release approximately 125 acres of airport land. The Port 
has invested significant funds for commercial subdivisions and 
installation of critical infrastructure in Divisions 5 and 7, but 
despite the ready-to-build condition and years of steady marketing the 
Port has not been able to attract a suitable private-sector development 
on a leased basis.
    Paccar, Inc., a private sector corporation, has now presented the 
Port with an offer to purchase. The Port commission has declared a 
portion of Division 5 and all of Division 7 (``the property'') surplus 
to the needs of Port of Skagit and desires to sell the property to 
Paccar in order to generate new income to be used for the benefit of 
the Airport.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 27, 2017.
Jason Ritchie,
Assistant Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2017-21361 Filed 10-3-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
EXHIBIT 32.3



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Innkeepers USA Trust for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Roger Pollak, Vice President of Accounting of Innkeepers Hospitality, certify, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) 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 conditions and results of operation of Innkeepers Hospitality.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This certification shall only be deemed to cover
the financial statements of Innkeepers Hospitality, and shall not be deemed to cover any financial statements (or other information) included in the Report with respect to Innkeepers USA Trust.



Date: March 9, 2004



/s/ Roger PollakVice President of Accounting  Innkeepers Hospitality
#### Nicolas Jorge ROSALES-GUINEA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 10-70102.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2011.*

Filed March 14, 2011.

Allen R. Peters, Esquire, Lake Oswego, OR, for Petitioner.

Ali Manuchehry, Esquire, Trial, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: THOMAS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN,** District Judge.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable James C. Mahan, United States District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Petitioner Nicolas Jorge Rosales-Guinea, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of asylum and withholding of removal. Reviewing the BIA’s factual determinations for substantial evidence, *Hamazaspyan v. Holder,*590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir.2009), we deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that, even assuming that Petitioner established the presumption of a well-founded fear of future persecution, the presumption was rebutted by evidence of changed country conditions. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(A); *see also*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (substantial evidence exists “unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary”). The record shows that the Guatemalan civil war ended in 1996. The State Department’s 2006 country report on *696Guatemala makes no mention of reprisals against former members of the Guatemalan military by former guerillas, and it expressly notes that there were “no reports of politically motivated disappearances.” The BIA’s analysis of changed country conditions was sufficiently individualized because it also found that Petitioner’s father and brother continue to live unharmed in Guatemala, despite their past military service, and that there was no “evidence that anyone currently wishes to harm [Petitioner].”

Substantial evidence also supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioner reasonably could relocate to another area of Guatemala. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(l)(i)(B). Petitioner’s testimony before the immigration judge established that, in 1987, he left his home village and relocated to Guatemala City, where he lived for two years without incident. Accordingly, the BIA did not err in denying Petitioner’s application for asylum.

For the same reasons, we affirm the BIA’s denial of Petitioner’s withholding of removal claim. *See Al-Harbi v. INS,*242 F.3d 882, 888-89 (9th Cir.2001) (“[The] clear probability standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the well-founded fear standard governing asylum.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).

Petition DENIED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**Exhibit21**

SUBSIDIARIES OFCANTERBURY PARK HOLDING CORPORATION
| Subsidiaries                                     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of  Incorporation** | ** ** |
|--------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|------------|
|                                             |       |                                    |       |
| Canterbury Park  Concessions, Inc.               |       | Minnesota                               |       |
| Shakopee Valley RV Park Acquisition Company, LLC |       | Minnesota                               |       |

 

The subsidiaries are100%-owned directly by Canterbury Park Holding Corporation. The financialstatements of such subsidiaries are included in the Consolidated FinancialStatements of Canterbury Park Holding Corporation.

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Ma rch 18, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00046

- CV

IN RE Brad LARSEN, Rent Werx LLC D/B/A Larsen Properties and Leah Larsen,

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 10309

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr. , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Iren e Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Real Parties’ unopposed second motion for an extension is GRANTED. We order the

Real Parties’ response due March 22, 2021

.

It is so ORDERED March 18 , 202 1

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
NUMBER 13

- 1 7

- 00 508

- CV



### COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JUDITH ANN NEUSE AND ALL OCCUPANTS OF 2115 ICHABOD LN, EDINBURG,TX 78539 , APPELLANT,

v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC , APPELLEE.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal fro m the County Court at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Russel Glenn Neuse, appealed a judgment signed by the County Court

at Law No. 8 of Hidalgo County, Texas. On September 17, 2018, the Clerk of this Court

notified appellant that that his brief failed to satisfy several of the requirements of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Appellant filed a first amended brief. On2 September 28, 2018, the Clerk notified appellant that that his first amended brief again

failed to satisfy several of the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e.
Specifically, the Clerk notified appellant that his first amended brief did not contain

appropriate citations to the authorities and to the record as required by Rule 38.1(i) of the

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 38 .1(i). The Cl erk instructed

appellant to file a second amended brief. Additionally, the Clerk warned appellant that if

the second amended brief did not comply with the rules of appellate procedure, we may

affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. Appellant’s second amended brief fails to

comply with Rule 38.1(i) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure because it contains

no record references and fails to cite to a single appellate opinion. The Court, having

considered the documents on file and appellant’ s failure to comply with the rules of

appellate procedure and the notices issued by the Clerk, is of the opinion that the appeal

should be dismissed. See id . R. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for

want of prosecution.

LETICIA HI NOJOSA Justice

Delivered and filed the 18th day of October, 2018.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GREGORY PARRIS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00138-CR

Appeal from the

277th Judicial District Court

of Williamson County, Texas

(Trial Court Nos. 19-0962-K277; 19-

0974-K277)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
**Exhibit 99.1**
Chief Executive Officer’s Sec. 302 Certification
     I, Héctor López, certify that:
     1.     I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Endesa-Chile;
     2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;and
     3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Endesa-Chileas of, and for, the periods presented in this report.             By: /s/ Hector López        Name: Hector López        Title: Chief Executive Officer    
Date: February 25, 2004