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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3011 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on telephone and other communications services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2009 

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. HELLER, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, 

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mr. BISHOP of New York, Mr. RUSH, 

Ms. DEGETTE, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mr. HERGER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. 

GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. 

PAUL, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. LANCE, 

Mr. MASSA, Mrs. HALVORSON, Ms. TITUS, and Mr. LAMBORN) 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 repeal 

the excise tax on telephone and other communications 

services. 

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 ‘‘Telephone Excise Tax 

5 Repeal Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 3011 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND 

2 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to facilities and services) is 

5 amended by striking subchapter B. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Section 4293 of such Code is amended by 

8 striking ‘‘chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed 

9 by sections 4064 and 4121) and subchapter B of 

10 chapter 33,’’ and inserting ‘‘and chapter 32 (other 

11 than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 

12 4121),’’. 

13 (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such 

14 Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 4251 or’’. 

15 (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such 

16 Code is amended— 

17 (i) by striking ‘‘imposed by—’’ and all that 

18 follows through ‘‘with respect to’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect 

20 to’’, and 

21 (ii) by striking ‘‘bills rendered or’’. 

22 (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) 

23 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘COMMUNICA24 TIONS SERVICES AND’’. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HR 3011 IH

1 (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by 

2 striking ‘‘4251, 4261, or 4271’’ each place it ap3 pears and inserting ‘‘4261 or 4271’’. 

4 (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such 

5 Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

6 subparagraph (B), by striking subparagraph (C), 

7 and by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subpara8 graph (C). 

9 (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of 

10 such Code is amended by striking the item relating 

11 to subchapter B. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills 

14 first rendered more than 90 days after the date of the 

15 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-20-00427-CV

IN RE Gustavo GARCIA-SILLER, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Acting 

on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as Independent Administrator 

of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Opinion by: Beth Watkins, Justice

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 23, 2020

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Relators Gustavo Garcia-Siller, Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Acting 

on Behalf of the Archdiocese of San Antonio, and Anita Valencia, as Independent Administrator 

of the Estate of Virgilio Elizondo, filed a petition for writ of mandamus and motion requesting 

emergency relief seeking to stay a trial court’s order compelling the production of certain 

documents. In their petition, relators alleged the trial court abused its discretion because the 

documents, which were produced to the trial court in camera, were privileged. The record shows 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CI-08589, styled John Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San 

Antonio, by and through the Apostolic Administrator and Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller and Archbishop Emeritus 

Patrick Flores, their predecessors and successors, as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio, 

Father Jesus Armando Dominguez, the Estate of Father Virgilio Elizondo, Deceased; Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, his 

predecessors and successors, as Bishop of the Diocese of San Bernardino, in its assumed or common name; the Roman 

Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino, a Corporate sole aka Diocese of San Bernardino, pending in the 131st Judicial 

District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Karen H. Pozza presiding.
04-20-00427-CV

- 2 -

the trial court signed the challenged order on August 4, 2020, and the order required the production 

of the documents by August 31, 2020. However, relators did not file their mandamus petition and

motion for temporary emergency relief until August 31, 2020. They did not submit the documents 

they produced to the trial court in camera until the following day. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy largely governed by equitable principles.

Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993) (orig. proceeding). Relators offer 

no explanation in either their petition or motion for emergency relief explaining why they failed 

to seek mandamus relief until their deadline to produce the disputed documents. See id.; Furr’s 

Supermarkets, Inc. v. Mulanax, 897 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, orig. proceeding)

(denying mandamus relief when relator waited until the day documents were ordered to be 

produced, one month after the order compelling production was signed, with no explanation for 

delay). Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition. 

Beth Watkins, Justice
Exhibit 10.205.1



 






Exhibit 10.205.1




STATEMENT OF EXTENSION OF WARRANT EXERCISE DATE




On November 3, 2006 the Company and its Board of Directors unilaterally extended the expiration
date of the 6,000,000 second tranche warrants issued in connection with the Company’s 2006 Private
Placement Offering to March 1, 2007. The second tranche warrants previously were set to expire
November 30, 2006.



Before the Company’s December 2006 1-for-100 reverse stock split, these warrants had been
exercisable for 600,000,000 shares of common stock.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998             JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998             APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,741                   2,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,093                  28,093
<ALLOWANCES>                                       501                     501
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,229                  35,229
<PP&E>                                          14,921                  14,921
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,065                   7,065
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,417                 123,417
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,690                  15,690
<BONDS>                                         63,345                  63,345
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            74                      74
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,308                  44,308
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,417                 123,417
<SALES>                                        148,393                  53,131
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,393                  53,131
<CGS>                                           99,731                  35,594
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   99,731                  35,594
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,561                  14,817
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,022                   1,123
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,079                   1,597
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,172                     697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,907                     900
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,907                     900
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .39                     .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38                     .12


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted), Michael P. May, the Chief Executive Officer of iSECUREtrac
Corp. (the "Company"), and David G. Vana, the Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, each hereby certifies that:

1.    The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
      September 30, 2003, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32
      (the "Periodic Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
      and

2.    The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
      the period covered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the
      Company for the period covered by the Periodic Report.

Dated:  November 14, 2003


/s/   Michael P. May                        /s/   David G. Vana
-----------------------------------         ------------------------------------
Michael P. May                              David G. Vana
Chief Executive Officer                     Chief Financial Officer


                                                                         Page 19
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1168 CA 15-00575**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

DARTNELL ENTERPRISES, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V ORDER
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY (INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION), DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

HARRIS BEACH PLLC, PITTSFORD (H. TODD BULLARD OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (WILLIAM G. BAUER OF COUNSEL), MORGAN LEWIS & BROCKIUS LLP, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Thomas A. Stander, J.), entered June 18, 2014. The order, among other things, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the amended complaint.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Entered: November 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

I, Todd M. Raba,  Senior Vice  President  of  MidAmerican  Energy  Company  (the
"Company"),  certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the  Company for the annual  period
         ended  December  31,  2003  (the  "Report")  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

     (2) the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects,  the financial condition and result of operations of
         the Company.


Dated:  March 3, 2004




                                /s/ Todd M. Raba
                                ----------------------------
                                    Todd M. Raba
                                   Senior Vice President
                                (co-chief executive officer)
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and in connection with the filing by Intermost
Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation (the “Company”) with the Securities and
Exchange Commission of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months
ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), the undersigned, Chia Hsun Wu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, that to the best of his
knowledge:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 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 the
      Company.





This certification is being provided
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 and is not to be deemed a part of this Report, nor is
it to be deemed to be “filed” for any purpose whatsoever.





Date:  November
13, 2009





By:
                /s/ Chia Hsun WuChia
      Hsun WuChief
      Executive Officer





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.
LightPath Technologies, Inc. 8-K


Exhibit 10.2


AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTEE


This AFFIRMATION
OF GUARANTEE is made as of December 23, 2014 (“Affirmation”), by the undersigned guarantor (“Guarantor”)
for the benefit of AVIDBANK (“Bank”).


RECITALS


Bank and
Lightpath Technologies, Inc. (“Borrower”) are parties to
that Loan and Security Agreement dated as of September 30, 2013 and as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”).
In connection therewith, Guarantor executed for the benefit of Bank an Unconditional Guaranty dated as of September 30, 2013 (the
“Guarantee”). Borrower and Bank propose to enter into an amendment and restatement to the Agreement on even
date herewith (the “Restated Loan Agreement”), provided, among other things, that Guarantor consents to the
Restated Loan Agreement and agrees that the Guarantee will remain effective.


AGREEMENT


NOW, THEREFORE,
Guarantor agrees as follows:


1.


Guarantor consents
to the execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of the Restated Loan Agreement and the documents and instruments executed
in connection therewith.


2.


Guarantor confirms
that, as of the date hereof, Guarantor has no defenses against its obligations under the Guarantee.


3.


The Guarantee is and
shall remain in full force and effect with respect to Borrower’s Obligations (as defined in the Agreement) as modified by
the Restated Loan Agreement and otherwise and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects.


4.


Unless otherwise defined,
all capitalized terms in this Affirmation shall be as defined in the Guarantee.


5.


In the event that
any signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature
shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same
force and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf” signature page were an original hereof.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this Affirmation of Guaranty as of the first date above written.


 


	 	GUARANTOR:
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	GELTECH INC.
	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ J. James Gaynor
	 	 	 
	 	Name:	J. James Gaynor
	 	 	 
	 	Title :	President & CEO
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7524
KEITH E. WYATT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DANIEL T. MAHON, Warden, HCC; FRED SCHILLING, Director of Health Services; DR. ROGER M. PHILLIPS, M.D., Prison Doctor, HRRJ; DR. JOHN KING, M.D., Prison Doctor, HCC; DOCTOR K. W. JARRETT, M.D., Prison Doctor, HCC; DOCTOR W. D. HENCEROTH, M.D., Prison Doctor, PCC; DOCTOR BENJAMIN ULEP, M.D., Prison Doctor, Sussex II State Prison, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge. (2:06-cv-00348-JBF) Submitted: June 17, 2008 Decided: July 8, 2008 Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith E. Wyatt, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Bland Curwood, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Lisa Ehrich, Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; Edward Joseph McNelis, III, Elizabeth- 2 - Martin Muldowney, RAWLS & MCNELIS, PC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Keith E. Wyatt appeals the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing claims against Defendant King for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Wyatt v. Mahon , No. 2:06-cv-00348-JBF (E.D. Va. Sept. 21, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED
Exhibit 31.1

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Douglas K. Beplate, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this amended quarterly report of Emergency Filtration
Products, 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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 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 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 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 small business issuer's other certifying officer 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
the 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.

Date: October 24, 2003

/s/Douglas K. Beplate
Douglas K. Beplate, Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 99.5


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

I, Patrick J. Goodman,  Vice President and Treasurer of MidAmerican Funding, LLC
(the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  the Annual  Report on Form 10-Q of the Company  for the annual  period
          ended  December  31,  2002  (the  "Report")  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

     (2)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.


Dated:   March 25, 2003





                                    /s/ Patrick J. Goodman
                                    ----------------------------
                                    Patrick J. Goodman
                                    Vice President and Treasurer
                                    (chief financial officer)
#### Sterling Insurance Company, Inc., as Subrogee of Grandma’s Attic, Appellant, et al., Plaintiffs, v Mr. Coffee, Inc., Respondent.

[665 NYS2d 500]

—Order and judgment unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Fisher, J. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J.—Set Aside Verdict.) Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### Littlejohn *vs.*The Central Railroad.

A mother brought her action against a railroad for the homicide of her minor son. The evidence for the plaintiff made the following case: She lived in Russell county, Alabama; her son, who was eighteen year’s old, went to Atlanta to go into business as a butcher, but hired himself to defendant as a switchman and car-coupler; whi.e he was engaged in shoving a car from a side track to a main track, he was caught between the tender of the engine and a car, and crushed' to death; he was looking towards the engine, when he should have been looking ahead at the car before him; if he had been at the place where he should have been, he would not have been hurt; no negligence was shown on the part of the defendant’s servants or agents:

*Held,*that a verdict for the defendant was demanded by the evidence; and even if there had been any slight errors committed by the court, this would not work a reversal; but the charge of the court was a correct exposition of the law as applicable to this case.

Judgment affirmed.

January 21, 1885.

Blandford, Justice.