alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 6

- 00 347

- C R



### ____________________

LOUIS LANDRY

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ ________________________________

On A ppeal from the 356th District Court

Hardin County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 23354

________ ________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 23 , 2016, we notified the parties that the appeal would be

dismissed for want of prosecution unless arrangements were made for filing the

record or the appellant explained why he needed more time for filing the record. The

appellant did not file a response. I t appears that the appellant is not entitled to

proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.2. There being no

satisfactory explanation for the failure to file the record, the appeal is dismissed for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37 .3(b).2

APPEAL DISMISSE D

.

________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on January 17, 2017

Opinion Delivered January 18, 2017

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### F. J. Williams et al., plaintiffs in error, v. Joseph E. Daily et al., defendants in error.

Gen. No. 33,601.

Opinion filed January 27, 1930.

Clark & Clark, for plaintiffs in error; Bussell S. Clark, of counsel. Cooke, Sullivan & Bieks, for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed August 7, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00253

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF N .G.M., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 22

- 05861

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida

- Kipness, Reichek, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Reichek This appeal was filed after the Office of the Attorney General filed a notice in

the trial court that it was nonsuiting its petition to establish the parent

- child
relationship , the sole affirmative pleading in the underlying cause

. Because nothing

before us indicated the trial court had signed an order of nonsuit or other appealabl e order or judgment, w e questioned our jurisdiction over th e appeal

. See Jack B.
Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (appellate courts have
jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims and
interlocutory o rders authorized by statute to be appealed) ; see also Farmer v. Ben E.

Keith Co. , 907 S.W.2d 495, 496 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) ( appellate timetable runs– 2

–

from date judgment is signed, not form filing of pleading). Although we gave appellant an opportunity to demonstrate jurisdiction, he has failed to do so

. Accordingly, on the record before us, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

230253f.p05 /Amanda L. Reichek/ / AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF N.G.M., A CHILD

No. 05

- 23

- 00253

- CV On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 22

- 05861. Opinion delivered by Justice Reichek, Justices Partida

- Kipness and Miskel participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered this 7 th day of August 2023.
#### § 15f.15 What happens after the Docketing Clerk notifies all parties?

The first step in this process involves a response to your hearing request by OCR. OCR will turn over its entire file on your complaint to the ALJ. OCR also will file a report with the ALJ stating its position with respect to whether or not your complaint is an eligible complaint, with reasons for its position, as well as stating its position with respect to the merits of your complaint. OCR must turn over its file and make its report on its position on your complaint within 35 days. OCR must provide a copy to you of anything it provides to the ALJ.
----

----

|   | (1)    | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | (2)    | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company      for the periods presented. |

| Dated:       May 14, 2009                       |   |   |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
|                                                 |   |   |   |
| /s/  Dongliang      Su                     |   |   |   |
| Dongliang      SuActing      Chief Financial Officer |

----
Appeal No. 78-161.

#### Town of Hopkinton *v.*Clay J. Keiser.

The defendant’s request for permission to file his motion for rehearing out of time is granted. After consideration thereof, the motion for rehearing and request for stay of *916the Superior Court orders are denied.

Mr. Justice Doris did not participate.

*Frank J. Williams,*Solicitor, for plaintiff, *Clayton J. Reiser,*pro se, for defendant.
§ 1739.12 Eligible grant purposes. Grant funds may be used to finance the following: ( a ) The construction, acquisition, or leasing of facilities, including spectrum, land or buildings, used to deploy service at the Broadband Grant Speed to all residential and business customers located within the PFSA and all participating Critical Community Facilities, including funding for up to ten Computer Access Points to be used in the Community Center. Buildings constructed with grants funds must reside on property owned by the awardee. Leasing costs will only be covered through the advance of funds period included in the award documents;
( b ) The improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a Community Center and provision of Computer Access Points. Grant funds for the Community Center will be limited to ten percent of the requested grant amount. If a community center is constructed with grant funds, the center must reside on property owned by the awardee;
( c ) The cost of providing the necessary bandwidth for service free of charge to the Critical Community Facilities for 2 years.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-16-00773-CV

Brian Simons, Appellant

v.

Union Pacific Railroad Co., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY, 20TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CV36,607, HONORABLE JOHN YOUNGBLOOD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Brian Simons has filed an unopposed motion stating that he no longer

wishes to pursue his appeal and requesting that the appeal be dismissed. We grant the motion and

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 27, 2017
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. MODEL MILL CO., Inc.

No. 11968.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1954.

A. Norman Somers, Samuel M. Singer, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

George H. Armistead, Jr., and Charles J. Cornelius, Jr., Nashville, Tenn., for respondent.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MARTIN and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This cause was heard upon the record, briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties;

And the Court being of the opinion that the findings of the Board that the respondent had interfered with and restrained its employees in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act by interrogating them concerning their union activities and threatening them with economic reprisals, N. L. R. B. v. Ford Bros., 6 Cir., 170 F.2d 735, 738; Atlas Underwear Co. v. N. L. R. B„ 6 Cir., 116 F.2d 1020, 1023; and that the respondent’s refusal to recog*830nize and bargain with the Union after receiving its request to do so on January 10, 1952 was motivated not by any good faith doubt as to the Union’s majority in an appropriate unit, but by a desire to gain time in which to take action to dissipate the Union’s majority, Joy Silk Mills, Inc., v. N. L. R. B., 87 U.S.App. D.C. 360, 185 F.2d 732, 741, certiorari denied 341 U.S. 914, 71 S.Ct. 734, 95 L. Ed. 1350; N. L. R. B. v. Kobritz, 1 Cir., 193 F.2d 8, 14; N. L. R. B. v. Wm. Tehel Bottling Co., 8 Cir., 129 F.2d 250, 254-255; are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole;

And being also of the opinion that the application by the Union for Board certification did not as a matter of law excuse respondent’s refusal to bargain with the Union; N. L. R. B. v. Inter-City Advertising Co., 4 Cir., 190 F.2d 420, 421; N. L. R. B. v. W. T. Grant Co., 9 Cir., 199 F.2d 711, 712; and that the Union’s participation in the election without filing a complaint or withdrawing its representation proceeding did not constitute a waiver of the unfair labor practices previously committed and render improper the action of the Board in setting aside the election, N. L. R. B. v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 79, 86, affirmed 346 U.S. 482, 74 S.Ct. 214; Great Atlantic & Pacific Co., 101 N. L. R. B. No. 210; Securities & Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-203, 67 S.Ct. 1575, 1760, 91 L.Ed. 1995; Local Union No. 12 v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 189 F.2d 1, 5, certiorari denied 342 U.S. 868, 72 S.Ct. 109, 96 L.Ed. 653.

It is ordered that the Board’s Order of April 3, 1953 be enforced.
Exhibit
32.2





PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly report
of Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan
Ginsberg, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


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





A signed original of this written
statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.





Date:
August 6, 2010





/s/ Alan
Ginsberg


Alan
Ginsberg


Principal
Financial Officer
#### CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA, petitioner, v. VACATION VILLAGE, INC., et al.

No. 07-373.

Jan. 7, 2008.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
EXHIBIT 31.1

                         CERTIFICATION OF THE PRESIDENT

I, Frank Aiello, President of Cal Alta Auto Glass, Inc.
certify that:


    (1) I have reviewed this periodic report on Form
10-QSB of Cal Alta Auto Glass,
Inc;

    (2) Based on my knowledge, this periodic report does
 not contain any untrue
statements 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 3
covered by this periodic
report;

     (3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial
information included in this periodic report, fairly present
in all material
respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this periodic report;

     (4) The registrant's other certifying officers and
I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant
and we have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures
to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the
period in which this periodic report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and
     procedures as of the date within
90 days prior to filing date of this
     periodic report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c)presented in this periodic report our conclusions about the
effectiveness
     of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the
     Evaluation Date;

     (5) The registrant's other certifying officers
and I have disclosed, based
     on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit
     committee of registrant's board of directors (or
persons performing the
     equivalent function):

     a) all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal
     controls which could adversely affect the
registrant's ability to record,
     summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
     registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal
controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal
     controls; and

          (6) The registrant's other certifying officers and I
have indicated in this
     periodic report whether or not there were significant changes
in internal
     controls or in other factors that could
 significantly affect internal
     controls subsequent to the date of our
most recent evaluation, including
     any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies
and material
     weaknesses.

                                           /s/ Frank Aiello
Date: November 19, 2007                   --------------------
                                               Frank Aiello
                    President/CEO/Principal Accounting Officer/Dir.
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:Annual report for the Allegheny National Forest [electronic resource].**** 
SuDocNumber:A13.114/2:AL 5/
ItemNumber: 0080 (online)
CGPsystem Number:000555647
 
 
1999
2000
2001
 
 **
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated April 26, 2010, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22844), Lonza Riverside, 900 River Road, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania 19428, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedules I and II: Drug
ScheduleGamma hydroxybutyric acid (2010)
IAmphetamine (1100)
IIMethylphenidate (1724)
II
 The company plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (API's) for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of Lonza Riverside to manufacture the listed basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Lonza Riverside to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: November 1, 2010. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. 2010-28518 Filed 11-10-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
EXHIBIT 99.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF FRANK AIELLO


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

     In connection with the Periodic Report of Cal Alta Auto Glass, Inc.,(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Frank Aiello, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

Date: April 14, 2006        By: /s/ Frank Aiello
                                -------------------
                                   Frank Aiello
                                  President/CEO/Principal Financial Office/ Dir.
§ 1737.21 The completed loan application. ( a ) The completed loan application consists of four parts: ( 1 ) A completed RUS Form 490.
( 2 ) A market survey called the Area Coverage Survey (ACS).
( 3 ) The plan and associated costs for the proposed construction, called the Loan Design (LD).
( 4 ) Various supplementary information specified in 7 CFR 1737.22.
( b ) The RUS field representative assists the borrower in assembling this information. Certain information is required from initial loan applicants but usually not from borrowers seeking subsequent loans. Borrowers are to submit all information in paragraph (a) of this section to their RUS field representatives, who will review and then forward the packages to RUS headquarters.
( c ) RUS will make a determination of completeness of the application package and will notify the borrower of this determination within 10 working days of receipt of the information at RUS headquarters. If the application package is not complete, RUS will notify the borrower of what information is needed in order to complete the application package. If the information required to complete the application package is not received by RUS within 90 working days from the date the borrower was notified of the information needed, RUS may return the application package to the borrower. Returned applications are without prejudice and borrowers may resubmit the completed application.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0572-0079) [54 FR 13356, Apr. 3, 1989. Redesignated at 55 FR 39396, Sept. 27, 1990, as amended at 56 FR 26598, June 10, 1991]
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter B of Chapter XIV

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations to regulations affecting previous program years not included in this volume, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*

#### § 1465.32 Access to operating unit.

Any authorized NRCS representative will have the right to enter an operating unit or tract for the purpose of determining eligibility and for ascertaining the accuracy of any representations related to contracts and performance. Access will include the right to provide technical assistance; determine eligibility; inspect any work undertaken under the contracts, including the APO and O&M agreement; and collect information necessary to evaluate the conservation practice performance as specified in the contracts. The NRCS representative will make an effort to contact the participant prior to exercising this provision.
PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


 


	$183,497.72	February 
    28, 2013









 


FOR
GOOD AND VALUABLE  CONSIDERATION,
the receipt
and sufficiency  of which
is hereby acknowledged,
IDS Solar Technologies, Inc., a Nevada
corporation,  ("Maker") hereby promises to pay
to the order of Bruce R. Knoblich  ("Holder")
the sum of ONE HUNDRED  EIGHTY-THREE
THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN DOLLARS
($183,497.72).
This Note shall bear interest at the rate of five percent
(5%) per annum. All principal and interest due hereunder shall be paid on or before
August 27, 2013.


 


This
notes supercedes  the
Note dated November 
27, 2012 for
$51,800.00 between
IDS Solar Technologies, Inc. and
Bruce R. Knoblich and incorporates the
principal balance into this promissory
note.


 


Maker
hereby waives presentment,
dishonor, notice of dishonor
and protest.
 All parties
hereto consent to, and Holder is
expressly authorized to make, without notice, any and all renewals,
extensions, modifications, or waivers of the time for or the terms of payment of
any sum or sums due hereunder,
or under any documents 
or instruments relating
to or securing this Note, or of the
performance of any covenants,  conditions
or agreements hereof or thereof or
the taking or release of collateral securing
this Note. Any such action by Holder
shall not discharge the liability of any
party to this Note.


 


This
Note shall be
governed  by and
construed in accordance 
with the laws
of the State
of Nevada without regard to conflict of law principles. Maker shall
also pay Holder any and all costs
of collection incurred in connection with this
Note, including court costs and reasonable
 attorney's
fees.


 



IDS
Solar Technologies, Inc.


 



By:
/s/ Bruce R. Knoblich


Bruce
R. Knoblich, 
President
#### § 1737.51 Approval of loan design.

RUS shall notify the borrower when the preloan data concerning the system design and costs and subscriber projections have been approved. If found acceptable, RUS will approve the LD with any required changes. A copy of the approved LD, with any significant changes, as determined by RUS, will be returned to the borrower.