alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 27, 2014

No. 04-14-00526-CR

EX PARTE Gregory JONES,

From the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014W0238

Honorable Andrew Carruthers, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due September 18, 2014.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE FORM

NOTE: In order to appear before this Court an attorney must either be a member in good

standing of this Court’s general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for

by Local Rules 83.12 through 83.14.

In the Matter of Case Number:

AN APPEARANCE IS HEREBY FILED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS ATTORNEY FOR:

NAME (Type or print)

SIGNATURE (Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically)

 s/

FIRM

STREET ADDRESS

CITY/STATE/ZIP

ID NUMBER (SEE ITEM 3 IN INSTRUCTIONS) TELEPHONE NUMBER

ARE YOU ACTING AS LEAD COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU ACTING AS LOCAL COUNSEL IN THIS CASE? YES NO 

ARE YOU A MEMBER OF THIS COURT’S TRIAL BAR? YES NO 

IF THIS CASE REACHES TRIAL, WILL YOU ACT AS THE TRIAL ATTORNEY? YES NO 

IF THIS IS A CRIMINAL CASE, CHECK THE BOX BELOW THAT DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS.

RETAINED COUNSEL APPOINTED COUNSEL 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 69 Filed: 05/02/13 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:416
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


  

  Exhibit
   10(i)

  

 CONSENT OF
   INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’

  

 To the Board of
   Directors of

 Massachusetts Mutual
   Life Insurance Company

  

         We consent to the
   inclusion in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 15 to Registration Statement
   No. 33-7723 on Form N-4 of our reports dated February 14, 2000 on our audit
   of the Flex Extra (non-qualified) segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable
   Annuity Separate Account 2, February 1, 2000 on our audit of the Flex Extra
   (qualified) segment of Massachusetts Mutual Variable Annuity Separate
   Account 1, as of December 31, 1999 and for the year then ended, and of our
   report dated February 1, 2000, on our audit of the statutory financial
   statements of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company as of December 31,
   1999 and for the year then ended, which includes explanatory paragraphs
   relating to the use of statutory accounting practices, which differ from
   generally accepted accounting principles. We also consent to the reference
   to our Firm under the caption “Experts” appearing in the Statement
   of Additional Information.

  

 DELOITTE
 & TOUCHE 
 LLP

  

 Hartford,
   Connecticut

 April 24,
   2000
#### 1317.203 Solicitations.

The designee authorized to limit option quantities for additional supplies greater than 50 percent of the initial quantity of the same contract line item is set forth in CAM 1301.70.
1816.402 Application of predetermined, formula-type incentives. (NASA paragraphs 1, 2 and 3). When considering the use of a quality, performance, or schedule incentive, the following guidance applies: ( 1 ) A positive incentive is generally not appropriate unless— ( i ) Performance above the target (or minimum, if there are no negative incentives) level is of significant value to the Government;
( ii ) The value of the higher level of performance is worth the additional cost/fee;
( iii ) The attainment of the higher level of performance is clearly within the control of the contractor; and
( iv ) An upper limit is identified, beyond which no further incentive is earned.
( 2 ) A negative incentive is generally not appropriate unless— ( i ) A target level of performance can be established, which the contractor can reasonably be expected to reach with a diligent effort, but a lower level of performance is also minimally acceptable;
( ii ) The value of the negative incentive is commensurate with the lower level of performance and any additional administrative costs; and
( iii ) Factors likely to prevent attainment of the target level of performance are clearly within the control of the contractor.
( 3 ) When a negative incentive is used, the contract must indicate a level below which performance is not acceptable.
[63 FR 12997, Mar. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 21764, Apr. 22, 2004]
1403.705 Procedures. ( a ) *Reporting.* The facts concerning any final conviction for any violation of 18 U.S.C. 201-224 involving or relating to any contract awarded by a bureau or office shall be set forth in a report and submitted by the HCA to the Civil Division of the Department of the Justice. The report shall also contain a recommendation to initiate a debarment action. If debarment is recommended, the procedures in 1409.406-3(a) shall be followed. Copies of the report shall be provided to Director, PAM, and the Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Investigations for informational purposes.
( b ) *Notice of Proposed Action.* Based upon review of the report in paragraph (a) of this section and after consultation with the SOL and the OIG, as appropriate, the HCA shall give notice of the proposed action to the contractor in accordance with the requirements of FAR 3.704(c).
( c ) *Final Agency Decision.* The HCA shall make the final decision on voiding and rescinding contracts in accordance with the requirements of FAR 3.705(e).
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Charles DeMartin

*Anthony J. Lasóla,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Ernest J. Diette, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

Argued October 1

decided October 2, 1974

The defendant’s motion for the entry of a final judgment in his favor in the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is denied.
# Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed September 11, 2024

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D24

- 1197 Lower Tribunal No. F05

- 30218 B

________________



### Nelson Viera , Appellant,

vs.


### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Laura María González

- Marqués
, Judge.

Nelson Viera , in proper person. Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Magaly Rodriguez , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. An order denying a motion to mitigate sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c) is not an appealable order. Staveley v. State , 866 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Daniels v. State , 568 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) ; Royal v. State , 736 So. 2d 157 , 157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Bourjolly v.

State , 623 So. 2d 870 , 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). “Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the correctness of the trial court ’ s dispositi on of the

motion.” Rector v. State , 852 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REFERENCED BELOW AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                            3020
<SECURITIES>                                     21480
<RECEIVABLES>                                    22927
<ALLOWANCES>                                      4881
<INVENTORY>                                       8003
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 55495
<PP&E>                                           17496
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10990
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   63893
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             5138
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          9847
<OTHER-SE>                                       48842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     58689
<SALES>                                          73468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 73468
<CGS>                                            19073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    19073
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 38290
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  2442
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  17100
<INCOME-TAX>                                      6584
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              10516
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     10516
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.27
        

</TABLE>
CIE-K. LINVEMAN ER

, J. 11114 Saitta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA JASON ARTHUR ALTHEIDE, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE ROBERT W. LANE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondent. No. 69745 

# FILED MAR 1 7 2016
ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an order directing the district court to rule on petitions pending before it and seeks various other extraordinary remedies. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED."

Hardesty

cc: Jason Arthur Altheide Attorney General/Carson City Nye County Clerk 'We also deny petitioner's motions filed under this docket number

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA (7) 19474 44

4S5, 9
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00858

- CV

IN THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND OATMAN WHIPPLE, JR., DECEASED,

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006

- PC

- 0273 Honorable Robin V. Dwyer , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pending before the court is the appellant’s motion requesting an extension of time to respond to this court’s order dated January 19, 2018, and appellee’s response in opposition to the motion. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant must provide the written proof in response to this court’s order dated January 19, 2018 no later than February 8, 2018. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 31st day of January, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 32.1

BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

Form
10-Q for Quarterly Period Ended September 27, 2009

EXHIBIT 32.1

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 Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 27, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John S. Shiely, Chief Executive 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/ John S. Shiely     
|John S. Shiely         
|Chief Executive Officer
|November 4, 2009       

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135998 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135998 COA: 281750 Muskegon CC: 06-054222-FH ANIBAL DIAZ MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

d0519 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 27, 2008

Clerk
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CertificationPursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of

theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, William L. Bridgford,Chairman of Bridgford Foods Corporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

(1)                                  theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedApril 14, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or780(d)); and

 

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

 

Dated: May 30, 2006

 
|   | /s/     William  L. Bridgford |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | William L. Bridgford,  Chairman                        |
|   | (Principal Executive  Officer)                         |

 

----
1

Ostigaard, Crystal

From: Dave [dave@montanapetroleum.org]

Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 7:19 PM

To: Ostigaard, Crystal

Cc: Spencer Gray; Dave; Mark Lambrecht

Subject: Fwd: Comments for NAAQS Designation - Yellowstone County

Attachments: Comments - EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 - Yellowstone County - MT.pdf; ATT00001.htm; Cover 

Letter - EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0233 - Yellowstone County - MT.pdf; ATT00002.htm

Subject: Comments for NAAQS Designation - Yellowstone County

ostigaard.crystal@epa.gov

Please find the attached comments and cover letter submitted by Montana Petroleum Association, Treasure 

States Resource Industrial Association, and Billings Laurel Air Quality Technical Committee.
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

About EDOFFICES

##   Partnerships and Parental                Empowerment 

**Partnerships**

 OCR recognizes that federal, state, and local education agencies,                as well as parents and other interested parties, share a common                goal of equal opportunity and access to high quality education.                OCR combines its expertise through educational partnerships to prevent                civil rights problems and stop illegal discrimination. P artnerships also are proving helpful in arriving at effective                solutions, including educationally sound remedies that increase                opportunities for all students.

**Empowering Parents**

One of OCR's strategic goals is to empower students and parents                to solve their own problems of securing equal access to quality                education. OCR has encouraged parental involvement in agreements resulting                from complaints and compliance reviews. Parental involvement is                essential to achieving lasting change by ensuring that positive                actions implemented by education institutions continue once OCR                is no longer involved.

Parental                  Partnerships Facilitated by OCR

|        |
|--------|
|   | Printable viewShare this page |
|        |

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Transforming Teaching
          - Family and Community Engagement
          - Early Learning

 

|  |
|--|
|  |
|  | How to File a Complaint |  |
|  |
|  | Topics A-Z |  |
|  |
|  | Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) |  |
|  |
|  | Other Civil Rights Agencies |  |
|  |
|  | Recursos de la Oficina Para Derechos Civiles en Español |  |
|  |
|  | Resources Available in Other Languages |  |
|  |

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a GrantEligibility for Grants

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works Clearinghouse

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy ProgramSubscribe to E-Mail Updates

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
#### 1352.228-77 Contractor assurance of subcontractor payments.

As prescribed in [48 CFR 1328.102-3](/on/2024-09-16/title-48/section-1328.102-3), insert the following clause:

Contractor Assurance of Subcontractor Payments May 2015

(a) To protect the interests of subcontractors participating in the performance of this contract, the Government requires the assurance that all monies due to subcontractors is timely and properly made prior to the submission of the contractor's final invoice.

(b) By accepting this award, in writing or by performance, the offeror/contractor represents that—it will provide full payment to all subcontractors utilized in the performance of the resultant contract prior to the submission of its final invoice.

(c) No later than five (5) days after contract award the contractor shall provide the Contracting Officer with a list of all subcontractors to be utilized in the performance of this contract. The contractor must provide updates to the Contracting Officer throughout the contract, should changes be made.

(d) The following shall be completed and provided accordingly:

Subcontractor List—Contract No.\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

| Name of subcontractor business | Subcontractor point of contact with contact information (number/e-mail) | Contract line item(s) to which subcontract work is tied | Applicable trade (electrical, mechanical, etc.) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |

(e) Reports by subcontractors of delayed or non-payment during the performance of the contract may impact the Government's continued payment of contractor invoices on a percentage of completion basis. (CAR clause, 1352.271-71, *Method of Payment and Invoicing Instructions for Ship Repair*).

(f) The contractor shall include the following statement on its final invoice—“By submission of this invoice, assurance is herein provided that all monies due to any and all subcontractors used in the performance of this contract have been paid in full prior to the submission of this final invoice.”

(g) Failure to pay subcontractors could adversely affect the contractor's past performance evaluation for this contract and have a negative impact on its eligibility for future contract awards.

(h) The Government may seek any available remedies in the event the contractor fails to comply with the provisions of this clause.

[[80 FR 27268](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/80-FR-27268), May 13, 2015]
Exhibit 10.01

                        HISPANO TELEVISION VENTURES
                 2426 ARBUCKLE COURT, DALLAS, TEXAS  75229
                     972-488-2959   972-488-2956 (FAX)

                                    AGREEMENT
                                    ---------


TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This shall serve as a formal agreement between Patrick Alan and Victoria O.
Luckett and Victor Mantecon (principal shareholders of Hispano Television
Ventures, Inc.) relative to stock disbursement.

AGREED that an account shall be established for the recovery of capital by the
principals. This account shall consist of 360,000 shares of stock which shall be
sold at the earliest possible date. The proceeds from 60,000 shares shall be
used to help retire IRS debts incurred by Victor Mantecon. All remaining
proceeds from the sale of this stock (60,000 shares) will be disbursed to Victor
Mantecon. The remaining 300,000 shares shall be used for partial capital
recovery of Patrick Alan and Victoria O. Luckett.

This Agreement will not affect the original voting status of either party.
Patrick Alan and Victoria O. Luckett and Victor Mantecon shall maintain equal
voting rights proportional to 1,360,000 shares.

Signed this   9th   day of     June    , 1998.
            ------         ------------

/s/ Victor Mantecon
------------------------------------------
VICTOR MANTECON, President


/s/ Patrick A. Luckett
------------------------------------------
PATRICK ALAN LUCKETT, Vice President, CFO


/s/ Victoria O. Luckett
------------------------------------------
VICTORIA O. LUCKETT, Secretary/Treasurer
### §7103. Issuance and amendment of orders

#### (a) In general

Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary shall issue orders under this chapter applicable to producers, feeders, importers, handlers, and purchasers of sheep and sheep products. Any order shall be national in scope. Not more than 1 order shall be in effect under this chapter at any 1 time.

#### (b) Procedure

#### (1) Proposal or request for issuance

The Secretary may propose the issuance of an order under this chapter, or an association of producers may request the issuance of, and submit a proposal for, an order.

#### (2) Notice and comment concerning proposed order

Not later than 60 days after the receipt of a request and proposal for an order under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall publish a proposed order and give due notice and opportunity for public comment on the proposed order.

#### (3) Issuance of orders

After notice and opportunity for public comment are given as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall issue an order, taking into consideration the comments received, that includes provisions necessary to ensure that the order is in conformity with this chapter. The order shall be issued not later than 180 days following publication of the proposed order.

#### (4) Referendum

The order shall go into effect only if the order is approved by producers, feeders, and importers in a referendum conducted under section 7105 of this title.

#### (c) Amendments

The Secretary, from time to time, may amend any order issued under this chapter.

(Pub. L. 103–407, §4, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4213.)