alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Walter Mortgage s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 23, 2014

No. 04-14-00707-CV

Melissa BROQUET and John Broquet,

Appellants

v.

WALTER MORTGAGE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-12-60-A

Judge Robert Blackmon, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The trial court signed a final judgment on June 9, 2014. Appellants filed a timely motion 

for new trial on July 1, 2014. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed September 8, 

2014. A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on September 23, 

2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Although appellants filed a notice of appeal within the fifteenday grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, they did not file a motion for extension of time. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, 

the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellants file, within fifteen days from the date of this 

order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. If appellants fail to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further 

order of this court except the appellants’ payment of the filing fee for this appeal which is due to 

be paid no later than October 24, 2014.

_________________________________

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

court on this 23rd day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### § 58.11 Approval of application.

An application for inspection or grading service may be approved when (a) a qualified inspector or grader is available, (b) facilities and conditions are satisfactory for the conduct of the service, and (c) the product has been manufactured or processed in a plant approved for inspection or grading service in accordance with the provisions of this part and instructions issued thereunder.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:98-cr-00014-MP

WILLIE T CHANDLER,

Defendants.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

A hearing was held in this case on August 9, 2007, regarding Doc. 512, Petition alleging

violation of supervision. At the outset of the hearing, the defendant requested additional time to

review medical records. The motion to continue is granted, and the hearing of petition alleging

violation of supervised release will be reset by separate notice.

DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of August, 2007

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:98-cr-00014-MP-AK Document 517 Filed 08/15/07 Page 1 of 1
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS25345 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
9.104 Standards.

9.104-1 General standards.

9.104-2 Special standards.

9.104-3 Application of standards.

9.104-4 Subcontractor responsibility.

9.104-5 Representation and certifications regarding responsibility matters.

9.104-6 Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.

9.104-7 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses.

Parent topic: Subpart 9.1 - Responsible Prospective Contractors
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Kathyrn B. McGuire, Also Known as Katherine B. McGuire McCann, Deceased. Chester McGuire, Respondent; Philip McGuire et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 21, 2007;

decided June 28, 2007

Reported below, 34 AD3d 589; 2007 NY Slip Op 65897(U).

*839Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying reargument or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, dismissed upon the ground that such order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied.
§ 52.779 Freedom from pits. ( a ) *General.* The factor of freedom from pits refers to the incidence of pits and pit fragments.
( b ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) A *pit,* for the purposes of the allowances in this section, is a whole cherry pit or portions of pits computed as follows: ( i ) A single piece of pit shell, whether or not within or attached to a whole cherry, that is larger than one-half pit shell is considered as one pit;
( ii ) A single piece of pit shell, whether or not within or attached to a whole cherry, that is not larger than one-half pit shell is considered as one-half pit;
( iii ) Pieces of pit shell, within or attached to a whole cherry, when their combined size is larger than one-half pit shell are considered as one pit; and
( iv ) Pieces of pit shell, within or attached to a whole cherry, when their combined size is not larger than one-half pit shell are considered as one-half pit.
( 2 ) *Drained cherries* means pitted cherries that have been drained of packing medium by the method prescribed in this subpart.
( c ) (*A*) *classification.* Canned red tart pitted cherries that are practically free from pits may be given a score of 18 to 20 points. “Practically free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present in the drained cherries does not exceed the allowances for this classification as set forth in Table IV.
( d ) (*B*) *classification.* Canned red tart pitted cherries that are reasonably free from pits may be given a score of 16 or 17 points. Canned red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade B, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Reasonably free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present does not exceed the allowances for this classification as set forth in Table IV.
( e ) (*C*) *classification.* Canned red tart pitted cherries that are fairly free from pits may be given a score of 14 or 15 points. Canned red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade C, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Fairly free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present in the drained cherries does not exceed the allowances for this classification as set forth in Table IV.
( f ) (*SStd.*) *classification.* Canned red tart pitted cherries that fail to meet the requirements of U.S. Grade C may be given a score of 0 to 13 points and shall not be graded above Substandard, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule).
158 So.2d 611

#### Mrs. Theresa BOHLENDER, widow of August F. FRIEDEL, Sr., and Allied American Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Richards Center, Inc. v. BAYOU TOURS, INC., and Marquette Casualty Company.

No. 46998.

Dec. 16, 1963.

In re: Bayou Tours, Inc., and Marquette Casualty Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 156 So.2d 255.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
52.219-13 Notice of Set-Aside of Orders.

As prescribed in 19.507(f)(1), insert the following clause:

Notice of Set-Aside of Orders (Mar 2020)

(a) The Contracting Officer may set aside orders for the small business concerns identified in

19.000(a)(3).

(b) The Contracting Officer will give notice of the order or orders, if any, to be set aside for small

business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3) and the applicable small business program. This notice,

and its restrictions, will apply only to the specific orders that have been set aside for any of the small

business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3).

(End of clause)

Alternate I (Mar 2020) . As prescribed in 19.507(f)(2), substitute the following paragraph (a) for

paragraph (a) of the basic clause:

(a) The Contracting Officer will set aside orders for the small business concerns identified in

19.000(a)(3) when the conditions of FAR 19.502-2 and the specific program eligibility requirements

are met, as applicable.

Parent topic: 52.219 [Reserved]
52.211-15 Defense Priority	and Allocation Requirements.       As prescribed	in 11.604(b), insert	the following clause:          Defense Priority and Allocation Requirement (Apr 2008)          This is a rated order certified for national defense, emergency	preparedness, and energy program use, and the Contractor shall follow	all the requirements of the Defense Priorities and Allocations System	regulation (15 CFR 700).          (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.211 [Reserved]
#### Lawrence Franklin et al., Respondents, v. Elbert Mandeville, as Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Nassau, et al., Appellants, and Michael N. Petito et al., Respondents.

In an action for a declaratory

judgment, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November 4, 1968, which (1) granted the separate motions of plaintiffs and of defendants Petito and Nickerson on their cross claim against the other defendants; (2) adjudged that section 104 of the County Government Law of Nassau *County*(L. 1936, eh. 879, as amd.) is illegal, invalid and unconstitutional; and (3) made further directions with respect thereto. Judgment affirmed, without costs. On the undisputed facts presented on the motions for summary judgment, we agree with the Special Term that the weighted voting plan for the election of Supervisors of the County of Nassau violated the *“*one person, one vote ” concept as explained in eases such as *Reynolds*v. *Sims*(377 U. S. 533), by depriving citizens of the Town of Hempstead of their right to substantial equality of representation. That conclusion appears inescapable, in view of the fact that the residents of that town constitute in excess of 57% of the population of the county, while their representatives have less than 50% of the total vote of the Board of Supervisors. Little need be added to the opinion below *(Franklin*v. *Mandeville,*57 Misc 2d 1072) other than to note that, since the present plan of apportionment is invalid for the reason stated, it is our view that it is unnecessary to take testimony on the question of whether the plan is also invalid *550under *Iannucci*v. *Board of Supervisors*(20 N Y 2d 244), in that it does not accord to each legislator the voting power, measured by the mathematical possibility of his casting a decisive vote, approximate to the power which he would have in a legislative body which did not employ weighted voting. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Benjamin and Martuseello, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Novell, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company),
hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2005 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



* * *



|                           
|---------------------------
|CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER    
|                           
|/s/ JOSEPH S. TIBBETTS, JR.
|Joseph S. Tibbetts, Jr.    
|                           
|Date: March 11, 2005
EXHIBIT 32

  CERTIFICATIONS OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
   OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO
                   18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI
Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2007, as
filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on  the  date
hereof (the "Report"), I, the undersigned officer of the Company,
certifies,  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) 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:  November 13, 2007           /s/    JOSEPH R. ROZELLE
                                   ---------------------------
                                   JOSEPH R. ROZELLE
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   and Principal Financial Officer


The  foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit  to
the  Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K  and
Section  906  of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections  (a)
and  (b)  of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United  States
Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-
Q  for  purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act  of
1934,  as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into  any
filings  of  the Company, whether made before or after  the  date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in  such
filing.





<PAGE>
# 23.903 Contract clause.

The *contracting officer**shall* insert the clause at 52.223-19, Compliance With *Environmental* Management Systems, in all *solicitations* and contracts for contractor operation of Government-owned or -leased facilities or vehicles, located in the *United States*. For facilities located outside the *United States*, the *agency head**may* determine that use of the clause is in the best interest of the Government.

**Parent topic:**Subpart 23.9 - Contractor Compliance with Environmental Management Systems
#### Henry Windecker, Appellant, v Barbara Windecker, Respondent.

*602In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 20, 1978, as, upon reargument, adhered to a previous order of the same court, dated February 24, 1978, denying his motion for a downward modification of alimony. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, order dated February 24, 1978 vacated, and case remitted to Special Term for an evidentiary hearing on the application for a downward modification. The record here demonstrates that the Family Court did not reach the issue of whether the plaintiff was without knowledge of his wife’s employment status when he entered into the stipulation incorporated into the judgment of divorce. Therefore, it was error for Special Term to deny plaintiffs application for a downward modification based upon the earlier decision of the Family Court. Moreover, evidence was adduced suggesting a change in circumstances occurring subsequent to the Family Court’s order which should have been considered on the merits at Special Term. Accordingly, a hearing should have been held on the plaintiffs application (see *Dostanko v Dostanko,*57 AD2d 885). Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Connor, Cohalan and Margett, JJ., concur.
§ 58.605 Meaning of words. For the purpose of the regulations in this subpart, words in the singular form shall be deemed to impart the plural and vice versa, as the case may demand. Unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meaning as applied to frozen desserts meeting FDA requirements and briefly defined as follows: ( a ) *Ice cream.* The product conforming to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for ice cream (21 CFR 135.110).
( b ) *Frozen custard.* The product conforming to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for frozen custard (21 CFR 135.110).
( c ) *Reduced Fat, Light, or Fat free Ice Cream.* The products conforming to all applicable Federal Regulations including “Ice cream and frozen custard,” Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 135.110), “Nutrient content claims for fat, fatty acid, and cholesterol content of foods,” Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 101.62), and “Requirements for foods named by use of a nutrient content claim and a standardized term,” Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 130.10).
( d ) *Sherbet.* The product conforming to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for sherbet (21 CFR 135.140).
( e ) *Mellorine.* The product conforming to the requirements of the Food and Drug Administration for mellorine (21 CFR 135.130).
( f ) *Overrun.* The trade expression used to reference the increase in volume of the frozen product over the volume of the mix. This increase in volume is due to air being whipped into the product during the freezing process. It is expressed as percent of the volume of the mix.
( g ) *Mix.* The trade name for the combined and processed ingredients which after freezing become a frozen dessert.
[40 FR 47911, Oct. 10, 1975. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981, as amended at 67 FR 48976, July 29, 2002]
52.207-3 Right of First Refusal of Employment.       As prescribed in 7.305(c), insert the following clause:          Right of First Refusal of Employment (May 2006)                                       (a) 						            The Contractor shall give Government personnel who have been or will be adversely affected or separated as a result of award of this contract the right of first refusal for employment openings under the contract in positions for which they are qualified, if that employment is consistent with post-Government employment conflict of interest standards.                                          (b) 						            Within 10 days after contract award, the Contracting Officer will provide to the Contractor a list of all Government personnel who have been or will be adversely affected or separated as a result of award of this contract.                                          (c) 						            The Contractor shall report to the Contracting Officer the names of individuals identified on the list who are hired within 90 days after contract performance begins. This report shall be forwarded within 120 days after contract performance begins.                                 (End of clause)    **Parent topic:** 52.207 [Reserved]
#### § 58.4 Basis of service.

Inspection or grading service shall be performed in accordance with the provisions of this part, the instructions and procedures issued or approved by the Administrator, U.S. standards for grades, Federal specifications, and specifications as defined in a specific purchase contract. All services provided in accordance with these regulations shall be rendered without discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, or national origin.

[39 FR 986, Jan. 4, 1974. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981]
52.104 Procedures for modifying and

completing provisions and clauses.

(a) The contracting officer must not modify provisions and clauses unless the FAR authorizes their

modification. For example-

(1) "The contracting officer may use a period shorter than 60 days (but not less than 30 days) in

paragraph (x) of the clause"; or

(2) "The contracting officer may substitute the words ‘task order’ for the word ‘Schedule’ wherever

that word appears in the clause."

(b) When modifying provisions or clauses incorporated by reference, insert the changed wording

directly below the title of the provision or clause identifying to the lowest level necessary (e.g.,

paragraph, sentence, word), to clearly indicate what is being modified.

(c) When modifying provisions or clauses incorporated in full text, modify the language directly by

substituting the changed wording as permitted.

(d) When completing blanks in provisions or clauses incorporated by reference, insert the fill-in

information directly below the title of the provision or clause identifying to the lowest level

necessary to clearly indicate the blanks being filled in.

(e) When completing blanks in provisions or clauses incorporated in full text, insert the fill-in

information in the blanks of the provision or clause.

Parent topic: Subpart 52.1 - Instructions for Using Provisions and Clauses
QUIPP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, 1995 AND 1994


Primary and fully diluted
      earnings per share             1996         1995        1994

NET INCOME                        $2,219,828   $2,096,228  $1,376,206



Weighted average number of common
    shares outstanding during the  1,565,765    1,565,765   1,469,465
year

Add-common equivalent shares
(determined
    using the "treasury stock"
method)
    representing shares issuable
upon
    exercise of employee stock       128,190       59,892      87,507
options


Weighted average number of shares
    used in calculation of net
income
    per share                      1,693,955    1,625,657   1,556,792





Net income per common and common
    equivalent share                   $1.31        $1.30       $0.88
157 So.2d 232

#### Kathryn D. McWATERS et al. v. Jerome H. TURNAGE, Sr. et al.

No. 46975.

Nov. 12, 1963.

In re: Kathryn D. McWaters and Marcus V. McWaters applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 156 So.2d 68.

Writ refused. The result is correct.
[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:****Daybook[electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc:HE 20.41/2:D 33
ItemNumber:0485-A-04(online)
CGPsystem Number:000576596
 
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
#### § 51.37 Charges for fees, rates, and expenses.

For each carlot of product inspected, a fee or rate determined in accordance with §§ 51.38 and 51.39, and expenses determined in accordance with § 51.40, shall be paid by the applicant.

[56 FR 55800, Oct. 30, 1991]
###### Editorial Note on Part 57

#### Editorial Note:

1. At 63 FR 69969, Dec. 17, 1998, part 57 was added by duplicating portions of part 59. At 63 FR 72353, Dec. 31, 1998, part 59 was redesignated as part 590 of 9 CFR.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 57 appear at 63 FR 69971, Dec. 17, 1998.

#### § 57.360 Appeal inspection certificates.

Immediately after an appeal inspection is completed, an appeal certificate shall be issued to show that the original inspection was sustained or was not sustained.

[63 FR 69968, Dec. 17, 1998, as amended at 69 FR 57167, Sept. 24, 2004]