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

EXAS 

Honorable Martin Dieti, Jr. Opinion No. 

Secretary of State 

M-439 

State of Texas 

State Capitol Building 

Austin, Texas 78711 

'Re: May the Secretary of State 

publish and mail at state 

expense a bulletin or newsletter for the purpose of 

informinn various interested 

Dear PIr,Dles: offices of changes in the law? 

You have requested the opinion of this office as to 

whether you have authority to publish and mall at state expense 

a bulletin or newsletter which would set forth changes in various 

laws of this state. 

The powers and duties of publfc officers of this state 

are prescribed by the provisions of the Constitution and statutes 

relating to the particular officer. He may perform only such 

acts as are consonant with those duties Imposed upon him by law. 

47 Tex.Jur.2d 138, Public Offices @log. 

The statutory provisions relating to the duties and 

powers of the Secretary of State of the State of Texas are too 

numerous to discuss with any detail. We have carefully reviewed 

such statutes and do find a number of instances where it is the 

duty of the Secretary of State to cause to be prfnted and dfstributed certain statutes, directives, Instructions, and forms. 

Merely by way of example your attention is directed to Article 

1.03, Texas Election Code; Articles 4331, 4334, 4336; Article 

9.06, Texas Business Corporation Act. 

In this connection there is no statutory inhibition 

against the Secretary of State causing to be combined in newsletter or bulletin form several different statutes, directives, 

lnstructions,and forms which he is required by law to cause to 

be printed and distributed. The Secretary of State would not have 

the authority, however, to print and distribute a general newsletter or bulletin at state expense unless it contained those 

matters which he Is required to have printed and distributed. 

-2183- 
Hon. Martin Dies, Jr., Page 2 (M-439) 

SUMMARY 

In Instances where it Is the duty of the 

Secretary of State to cause to be printed and 

distributed certain statutes, directives, instructions, and forms a number of these may be 

combined in a newsletter or bulletin printed at 

state expense. Newsletters or bulletins of other 

types are not authorized. 

./7 

Prepared by W. 0. Shultz 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerns Taylor, Chairman 

George Kelton, Vice-Chairman 

Fielding Early 

Milton Richardson 

Brandon Bickett 

Jim Swearlngen 

HAWTHORNE PHILLIPS 

Executive Assistant 

-2184-
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

August 16, 2024

SC-2024-0353

Ex parte David Otto Jacobson PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: David Otto Jacobson 

v. State of Alabama) (Etowah Circuit Court: DC-23-1514 and CC-23-727; 

Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0963).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on August 16, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Wise, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Sellers, 

Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
EXHIBIT 18.01

FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2001


CARAUSTAR INDUSTRIES, INC.





Re: Form 10-Q Report for the Quarter ended June 30, 2001

August 13, 2001

Gentlemen:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of
Regulation S-K calling for a letter from a
registrants independent accountants whenever there has
been a change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, as of June 30, 2001, the
Company changed from the LIFO method of accounting for
inventories to the FIFO method at Atlantic Coast Carton
(ACC), the Companys sole subsidiary utilizing
the LIFO method. According to management, this change was made
following a restructuring of certain subsidiaries within the
carton and custom packaging group, whereby multiple
subsidiaries, including ACC, were merged into an existing
subsidiary. In connection with this restructuring, the Company
changed its inventory costing method at ACC to the FIFO method
to conform with the inventory costing methods of the surviving
subsidiary and all other Caraustar subsidiaries.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards
for determining the preferability of accounting principles among
acceptable alternative principles has not been established by
the accounting profession. Thus, we cannot make an objective
determination of whether the change in accounting described in
the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we
have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to
financial reporting, in this particular case on a subjective
basis, and our opinion stated below is based on our
determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Companys change in method
of accounting is to an acceptable alternative method of
accounting, which, based upon the reasons stated for the change
and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this
opinion, we have relied on the business judgment and business
planning of your management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the
financial statements of any period subsequent to
December 31, 2000. Further, we have not examined and do not
express any opinion with respect to your financial statements
for the six months ended June 30, 2001.



|                        | 
|----------------------- | 
|Very truly yours,       | 
|                       
|/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP | 
|                        | 
|ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP     |
Opinion issued March 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00940-CV

———————————

DAWN COMEAUX, Appellant

V.

VILLAGES OF LOUETTA, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1053972

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Dawn Comeaux, has neither paid the required fees nor 

established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1; 

see also TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041 (West 

2013), § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2014); Order Regarding Fees Charged in the 
2

Supreme Court, in Civil Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial 

Panel on Multi-District Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Tex. Aug. 16, 

2013). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for 

preparing the clerk’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that 

this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of 

prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur FLORES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50283.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 2008.

Filed May 16, 2008.

Lawrence S. Middleton, Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jan Lawrence Handzlik, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: WARDLAW and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FOGEL *, District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Jeremy D. Fogel, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Arthur Flores appeals his conviction based on the denial of his Rule 29 motion. He contends that the district court erred in concluding that he did not make a prima facie showing that he timely withdrew from the conspiracy.

We agree with the district court that Flores did not make a prima facie showing of withdrawal. *See United States v. Lothian,*976 F.2d 1257, 1261 (9th Cir.1992) (“To withdraw from a conspiracy a defendant must either disavow the unlawful goal of the conspiracy, affirmatively act to defeat the purpose of the conspiracy, or take definite, decisive, and positive steps to show that the [defendant’s] disassociation from the conspiracy is sufficient.” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)). Contrary to Flores’s assertions, none of the actions identified by Flores— including the January 5, 2001 letter — constitutes prima facie evidence that he disassociated himself from two of the conspiracy’s objectives, namely the concealment and retention of prior improper disability payments. We agree with the district court that the January 5, 2001 letter represented “abandonment of one of the objects of the conspiracy — the receipt of benefits to which [Flores] was not entitled — to accomplish another of its objects, the concealment of his improper receipt of benefits over the previous several years.” For the same reason, we conclude that Flores failed to make a prima facie showing that he satisfied either of the other two prongs of the *Lothian*test. There is no evidence in the record that Flores disavowed or acted to defeat the concealment and retention objectives of the conspiracy. *See id.*

Because the district court did not err in concluding that Flores failed to make a prima facie showing of withdrawal, the district court did not err in denying Flores’s Rule 29 motion. Moreover, the district court concluded that “the evidence estab*444lish[ed], beyond a reasonable doubt, that Flores in fact did not withdraw from the conspiracy.” There is sufficient evidence in the record to support this conclusion. *See United States v. Odom,*329 F.3d 1032, 1034 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Order entered November 29, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00935-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.K., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-16123

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s written verification he has requested 

preparation of the reporter’s record. The requested records are of the hearings held 

July 30, 2020; September 23, 2020; February 26, 2021; July 26, 2021; and, 

October 20, 2021. 

Accordingly, we ORDER Francheska Duffey, Official Court Reporter for 

the 330th Judicial District Court, to file the record no later than December 20, 

2021. As the clerk’s record reflects appellant filed a statement of inability to 

afford costs on September 4, 2019 and nothing in the record reflects appellant has 
been ordered to pay costs in accordance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145,

the record shall be filed without payment of costs.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. 

Duffey and the parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           5,064
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,595
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (120)
<INVENTORY>                                     21,340
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,401
<PP&E>                                          97,970
<DEPRECIATION>                                (45,684)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 117,147
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,298
<BONDS>                                        110,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   117,147
<SALES>                                         91,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                91,077
<CGS>                                           74,543
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   74,543
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   519
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,427
<INCOME-TAX>                                       614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                813
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,064
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (251)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
2014-0821.

#### State v. Walker.

Montgomery App. No. 25741, 2014-Ohio-1287. On motion for delayed appeal. Motion granted.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, J., dissent.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3324 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3324

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 
                  nonbusiness energy property credit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 18, 2021

Mr. Williams of Texas 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 permanently extend the 
                  nonbusiness energy property credit.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Incentivize Residential Energy 
Efficiency Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 25C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by striking subsection (g).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service after December 31, 2021.
                                 <all>
```
---

Exhibit 99.16

Consent of Barton Stone

I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission, of references to my name in connection with mineral reserve
and resource estimates for the El Morro Project and to the use of information
derived from the technical report entitled Feasibility NI 43-101 Technical
Report for the El Morro Copper-Gold Project, Region III, Chile, dated May 9,
2008 and readdressed to New Gold on August 26, 2009, included in the Annual
Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2009
and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the
registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2010.

|/s/ Barton Stone                                                      | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|Name: Barton Stone                                                    | 
|Title: P.Geo and Chief Geologist for Pincock, Allen
      & Holt Inc. | 

---
{"agency":"FMCS","generated":"2021-04-30 18:22:59","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"},{"label":"2019","value":"2019"},{"label":"2020","value":"2020"}],"value":"2021"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q2"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"1"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["FMCS"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["15"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["6"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["11"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2021","quarter":"Q2"}
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 of Comverse Technology, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Andre Dahan, as President and 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 to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(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 condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Andre DahanAndre DahanPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)


January 25, 2011

This certification accompanies this Annual Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be
incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Exhibit 35.1

                                                          [LOGO] IndymacBank(SM)


                       REG AB 1123 Statement of Compliance

I am an authorized officer for IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, the servicer for the
transaction listed below and I certify:

a)    A review of IndyMac Bank's activities during the reporting period and of
      its performance under the applicable servicing agreement has been made
      under my supervision.

b)    To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, except as set forth
      below IndyMac Bank has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
      agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.

c)    None


                                By: /s/ Robert M. Abramian
                                    ----------------------
                                    Robert M. Abramian
                                    First Vice President
                                    Home Loan Servicing
                                    Investor Reporting
                                    Indymac Bank


                                By: /s/ Barbara Perez
                                    ----------------------
                                    Barbara Perez
                                    Senior Vice President
                                    Indymac Bank



Prepared for:   Deutsche Bank

Date:           February 28, 2007

Ref:            651 - INABS 2006-B



                                                             www.indymacbank.com


             460 Sierra Madre Villa Ave., Pasadena, CA 91107   Tel: 626.535.5555