alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 12

- 00133

- CR

JAMES NATHAN ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 188th District Court Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 40028

- A

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.2 

### O R D E R

Court reporter Grelyn Freeman has filed a third request for extension of time to pr epare

the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 12

- 00133

- CR, styled James Nathan Alexander v. The

State of Texas , appealed from the 188 th Judicial District Court of Gregg County, Texas. The

reporter’s record was originally due in this case on or before December 4, 2012. It is currently

due, on Freeman’s second request for extension, February 4, 2013.

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure instruct:

The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. The appellate court may extend the deadline to file the record if requested by the clerk o r reporter. Each extension must not excee d 30 days in an ordinary or restricted appeal, or 10 days in an accelerated appeal. The appellate court must allow the record to be filed late when the delay is not the appellant’s fault, and may do so when the delay is the appellant’s fault. The appella te court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 35.3(c).

In furtherance of our responsibilities

, we find we must take steps to ensure the timely

filing of this appellate record.

We overrule Freeman’s third request for an extension of time.

Further, we order that Freeman complete and file the reporter’s record in this matter on or

before March 21, 2013.

If the record is not received by March 21, we warn Freeman that we may begin contempt

p roceedings requiring her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of this Court

for failing to obey its order.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: February 20, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                        5
<MULTIPLIER>                     1
       
<S>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                           230,357
<SECURITIES>                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                    935,480
<ALLOWANCES>                     78,736
<INVENTORY>                      1,342,911
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                 2,687,156
<PP&E>                           2,319,711
<DEPRECIATION>                   1,111,069
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   9,976,869
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>            1,888,378
<BONDS>                          2,622,293
<COMMON>                         125,557
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>            0
<PREFERRED>                      3,925
<OTHER-SE>                       5,888,352
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     9,976,869
<SALES>                          3,096,562
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 3,096,562
<CGS>                            2,485,488
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    3,022,379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                 41,155
<LOSS-PROVISION>                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               41,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  33,028
<INCOME-TAX>                     19,157
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              0
<DISCONTINUED>                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                  0
<CHANGES>                        0
<NET-INCOME>                     19,157
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                    .01
                                 

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            6096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7350
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                      20869
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 30566
<PP&E>                                           75488
<DEPRECIATION>                                   47224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   72351
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8418
<BONDS>                                          19633
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        442
<COMMON>                                          1026
<OTHER-SE>                                       32543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     72351
<SALES>                                          52667
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 52667
<CGS>                                            42768
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6707
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2204
<INCOME-TAX>                                       950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1254
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1254
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

GLORIA GUTIERREZ GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 12 C 0333

Magistrate Judge Denlow

COMMISSIONER’S MOTION TO AFFIRM THE COMMISSIONER’S DECISION

Defendant, Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, by Gary S. Shapiro, Acting

United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, moves pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g),

for judgment to be entered affirming the Commissioner’s decision.

A memorandum in support is filed with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

GARY S. SHAPIRO

Acting United States Attorney

By: s/ LaShonda A. Hunt

LASHONDA A. HUNT

Assistant United States Attorney

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 886-4190

lashonda.hunt@usdoj.gov

Case: 1:12-cv-00333 Document #: 23 Filed: 08/01/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:463
1536.209 Construction contracts with architect-engineer firms. ( a ) The provisions of FAR 36.209 do not apply to subcontractors performing treatability studies.
( b ) The provisions of FAR 36.209 also do not apply to subcontractors whose input during the design phase does not substantially affect the course of the design work.
( c ) Approval under FAR 36.209 is not required for subcontractors under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section. Approval for all other subcontractors and prime contractors may be granted by the Chief of the Contracting Office. In reviewing requests for approval, the Chief of the Contracting Office shall consider factors such as the availability of other firms to perform the necessary construction or Superfund remedial action work, the estimated cost to the Government, and the policy of the Agency to promote the use of innovative technology.
[55 FR 49283, Nov. 27, 1990, as amended at 59 FR 18977, Apr. 21, 1994; 81 FR 41237, June 24, 2016]
#### Rose Feldman, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry Feldman, Deceased, Respondent, v. New York City Transit Authority, Appellant.

Judgment entered in plaintiff’s favor unanimously reversed on the law and the complaint dismissed, with $50 costs to appellant. Decedent, an employee at a subway news stand, was killed when struck by a train while he was leaning over the *edge*of the platform to observe a fire on the tracks. The court charged the jury on the elements of common-law negligence and last clear chance and instructed that liability coidd be imposed on either ground if the facts so warranted. The jury rendered a general verdict in plaintiff’s favor. We hold that the verdict may not be sustained on either ground. We conclude that decedent’s behavior rendered him guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. “ He voluntarily placed his head in a position of danger and kept it there, without paying attention to the * * * [the direction] from which he knew a train would come towards his head. * * * Every second he remained, the likelihood of a train arriving increased. * * * He was heedless of ordinary precautions in a place of known danger.” *(Zobel*v. *City of New York,*275 App. Div. 782, affd. 300 N. Y. 490.) Nor may the defendant be cast in liability by reason of the application of the doctrine of last clear chance. To do so would require, *inter alia,*findings that the decedent was in a position of “ helpless danger ” and that the defendant’s motorman knew of decedent’s helplessness. On this record neither of such findings may be made. “ So long as the * * * [the decedent] could have drawn back from the risk of collision * * * he was not in helpless danger ” *(Hernandez*v. *Brooklyn & Queens Tr. Corp.,*284 N. Y. 535, 538-539). Neither is there any basis for a finding that the motorman *873was aware oí decedent or his state of peril. Nor was there any proof sufficient to permit' an imputation of knowledge to the motorman by reason of conduct so reckless as to show an indifference to knowledge. (See *Frey*v. *Long Is. R. R. Co.,*272 App. Div. 938.) In any event, even had the motorman observed the decedent leaning over the platform, in the circumstances he should not be charged with knowledge that decedent would not remove his head from the place of danger before it was too late *(Hernandez*v. *Brooklyn & Queens Tr. Corp., supra,*p. 539); *(Panarese*v. *Union Ry. Co.,*261 N. Y. 233, 237-238). Concur — Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Ben Ingram, Respondent, v. Gotham Originals et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

The board found, upon .conflicting evidence, that while carrying packages to an express office, claimant sustained compensable frostbite injuries resulting from an accident which occurred when he fell, was rendered unconscious and lay for some time in the snow. Appellants contend that the evidence in support of the claim is *“*incredible ” and has .been “ refuted ” but the board was entitled to and did find otherwise. Appellants’ additional contentions are also without merit. Decision affirmed, with costs to the Workmen’s Compensation Board. Gibson, J. P., Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed July 28, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-0975

Lower Tribunal No. 19-5733

________________

Alexis Gonzalez, et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Florida Insurance Guaranty Association,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. 

Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Billbrough & Marks, P.A., and Geoffrey B. Marks, for appellants.

Conroy Simberg, and Hinda Klein (Hollywood), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Subject: Conference Call with Portland Cement Association

– Startup and Shutdown

Location: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC

Date: November 1 4 , 2012

Participants:

Portland Cement Association

John Holmes

RTI Internatio nal

Mike Laney U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Keith Barnett

Sharon Nizich

John Holmes of PCA was contacted for clarification of procedures associated with startup and

shutdown.
#### 1452.228-70 Liability Insurance.

As prescribed in 1428.301, insert the following clause:

# Liability Insurance—Department of the Interior (JUL 1996)

(a) The Contractor shall procure and maintain during the term of this contract and any extension thereof liability insurance in form satisfactory to the Contracting Officer by an insurance company which is acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The named insured parties under the policy shall be the Contractor and the United States of America. The amounts of the insurance shall be not less than as follows:

$______each person*

$______each occurrence*

$______property damage*

(b) Each policy shall have a certificate evidencing the insurance coverage. The insurance company shall provide an endorsement to notify the Contracting Officer 30 days prior to the effective date of cancellation or termination of the policy or certificate; or modification of the policy or certificate which may adversely affect the interest of the Government in such insurance. The certificate shall identify the contract number, the name and address of the Contracting Officer, as well as the insured, the policy number and a brief description of contract services to be performed. The contractor shall furnish the Contracting Officer with a copy of an acceptable insurance certificate prior to beginning the work.

*These amounts to be set by the Contracting Officer.

(End of clause)
16.402-1 Cost incentives. ( a ) Most incentive contracts include only cost incentives, which take the form of a profit or fee adjustment formula and are intended to motivate the contractor to effectively manage costs. No incentive contract may provide for other incentives without also providing a cost incentive (or constraint).
( b ) Except for award-fee contracts (see 16.404 and 16.401 (e)), incentive contracts include a target cost, a target profit or fee, and a profit or fee adjustment formula that (within the constraints of a price ceiling or minimum and maximum fee) provides that— ( 1 ) Actual cost that meets the target will result in the target profit or fee;
( 2 ) Actual cost that exceeds the target will result in downward adjustment of target profit or fee; and
( 3 ) Actual cost that is below the target will result in upward adjustment of target profit or fee.
[48 FR 42219, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 12696, Mar. 17, 1997; 62 FR 51379, Oct. 1, 1997; 74 FR 52859, Oct. 14, 2009]
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.6

                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                               COX RADIO TRUST II


         THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of Cox Radio Trust II (the "Trust"), dated
as of November 2, 1999, is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned,
as trustees, to form a business trust under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12
Del. C. ss. 3801, et seq.) (the "Act").

         (i) Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is Cox
Radio Trust II.

         (ii) Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust in the State of Delaware are The Bank of New York (Delaware), White
Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware 19711, Attention: Corporate Trust
Administration.

         (iii) Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective as
of its filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have duly executed this Certificate of Trust in accordance with Section
3811(a)(1) of the Act as of the date first above written.


                                  THE BANK OF NEW YORK, as trustee


                                  By:      /s/  Marie E. Trimboli
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:   Marie E. Trimboli
                                          Title:  Assistant Treasurer



                                  THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE), as trustee


                                  By:      /s/ Frederick W. Clark
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          Name:   Frederick W. Clark
                                          Title:  Authorized Signatory
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 Annual Report of Golf Rounds.com, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies 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 operation of the Company.




Date: February 2, 2012
By:
/s/ Robert H. DonehewRobert H. Donehew,President (Principal Executive Officer) and

Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
#### 1449.402 Termination of fixed-price contracts for default.
#### 1831.205-671 [Reserved]
19.707 The Small Business Administration's role in carrying out the program. ( a ) Under the program, the SBA may— ( 1 ) Assist both Government agencies and contractors in carrying out their responsibilities with regard to subcontracting plans;
( 2 ) Review (within 5 working days) any solicitation that meets the dollar threshold in 19.702(a)(1)(i) or (ii) before the solicitation is issued;
( 3 ) Review (within 5 working days) before execution any negotiated contractual document requiring a subcontracting plan, including the plan itself, and submit recommendations to the contracting officer, which shall be advisory in nature; and
( 4 ) Evaluate compliance with subcontracting plans, either on a contract-by-contract basis, or, in the case of contractors having multiple contracts, on an aggregate basis.
( b ) The SBA is not authorized to ( 1 ) prescribe the extent to which any contractor or subcontractor shall subcontract,
( 2 ) specify concerns to which subcontracts will be awarded, or
( 3 ) exercise any authority regarding the administration of individual prime contracts or subcontracts.
[48 FR 42240, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 51 FR 2664, Jan. 17, 1986; 85 FR 11765, Feb. 27, 2020]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

 

R & A BAILEY & CO., ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 11-cv-07917 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) Judge Elaine E. Bucklo 

v. ) 

 ) Magistrate Judge Jeffrey T. Gilbert 

THE ELI’S CHEESECAKE COMPANY, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

 ) 

NOTICE OF MOTION 

Please take note that on Friday, December 16, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter 

as counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorneys for Defendant The Eli’s Cheesecake 

Company shall appear before the Honorable Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, or before any other Judge 

sitting in his stead, in the courtroom usually occupied by her at the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 219 S. Dearborn St., Chicago, Illinois, and 

shall then and there present the accompanying UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE PLEAD. 

Dated: December 5, 2011 By: /s/Max Shaftal 

Max Shaftal (#6182223) 

Patzik, Frank & Samotny Ltd. 

150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 1500 

Chicago, Illinois 60606 

(312) 551-8300 

mshaftal@pfs-law.com 

Attorneys for Defendant The Eli’s 

Cheesecake Company 

Case: 1:11-cv-07917 Document #: 15 Filed: 12/05/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:39
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned counsel of record hereby certifies that, on December 5, 2011, a true and 

correct copy of NOTICE OF MOTION was filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF 

system which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys of record 

in this action. 

Dated: December 5, 2011 By: /s/Max Shaftal 

Case: 1:11-cv-07917 Document #: 15 Filed: 12/05/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:40
Exhibit 32.1

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATE

Certification Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Executive OfficerApril 16, 2010




27
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

Hector Francisco Tarango
, * From the County Court at Law No. 2 of Ector County, Trial Court No. 22

- 3010

- CCL2

.

Vs

. No. 11

- 23

- 00 2 7 1

- CR * February 1 , 20 2 4

The State of Texas, * Memorand um Opinion by Bailey, C.J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J., and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance w ith this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 735 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require disclosure to 

States of the basis of determinations under such Act, to ensure use 

of information provided by State, tribal, and county governments in 

decisionmaking under such Act, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 27, 2017 

Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. HELLER, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to require 

disclosure to States of the basis of determinations under 

such Act, to ensure use of information provided by State, 

tribal, and county governments in decisionmaking under 

such Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘State, Tribal, and 

5 Local Species Transparency and Recovery Act’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 735 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING DECISIONAL TRANSPARENCY WITH AF2 FECTED STATES. 

3 Section 6(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

4 (16 U.S.C. 1535(a)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before the first sentence; 

6 and 

7 (2) by striking ‘‘Such cooperation shall include’’ 

8 and inserting the following: 

9 ‘‘(2) Such cooperation shall include— 

10 ‘‘(A) before making a determination under sec11 tion 4(a), providing to States affected by such deter12 mination all data that is the basis of the determina13 tion; and 

14 ‘‘(B)’’. 

15 SEC. 3. ENSURING USE OF STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL IN16 FORMATION. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3 of the Endangered Spe18 cies Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532) is amended— 

19 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through 

20 (21) as paragraphs (3) through (22), respectively; 

21 and 

22 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol23 lowing: 

24 ‘‘(2) The term ‘best scientific and commercial data 

25 available’ includes all such data submitted by a State, trib26 al, or county government.’’. 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 735 IS

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 7(n) of 

2 such Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(n)) is amended by striking 

3 ‘‘section 3(13)’’ and inserting ‘‘section 3(14)’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS