alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-20-00566-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG 

 

IN THE INTEREST OF G.C., J.C., A.C., A.C., CHILDREN

 

On Appellant’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief.

 

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

This is an appeal of a final order terminating parental rights. Appellant K.C. has 

filed a first motion for extension of time to file a brief. Appellant’s brief was due on 

February 22, 2021. Appellant has requested a ten-day extension to file a brief.

Appeals in parental termination and child protection cases are governed by the 

rules of appellate procedure for accelerated appeals but include additional expedited 

deadlines and procedures. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4; TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). The 

intermediate appellate courts are directed to ensure “as far as reasonably possible” that 
2

these appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of 

appeal is filed. TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a). Given the nature of these cases and the

shortened appellate deadlines, it is the policy of this Court to limit extensions of time to 

file a brief in such cases to one ten-day extension of time absent truly extraordinary 

circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d).

This Court, having fully examined and considered appellant’s motion is of the 

opinion that, in the interest of justice, appellant’s first motion for extension of time to file a 

brief should be granted with order. The Court, however, requires strict adherence to the 

briefing rules in appeals of parental termination cases, such as this appeal, and looks with 

disfavor upon the delay caused by such extension requests. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6; 

see also id. at R. 28.4.

The Court GRANTS appellant’s first motion for extension of time. This motion is 

GRANTED insofar as the Court will extend appellant’s deadline to file the brief for ten (10) 

days as requested by appellant. Further motions for extension of time will not be favorably 

entertained by this Court, absent extraordinary circumstances.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

23rd day of February, 2021.
§ 423.2124 Oral argument. An enrollee may request to appear before the Council to present oral argument. ( a ) The Council grants a request for oral argument if it decides that the case raises an important question of law, policy, or fact that cannot be readily decided based on written submissions alone.
( b ) The Council may decide on its own that oral argument is necessary to decide the issues in the case. If the Council decides to hear oral argument, it informs the enrollee of the time and place of the oral argument at least 10 calendar days before the scheduled date or, in the case of an expedited review, at least 2 calendar days before the scheduled date.
( c ) In case of a previously unrepresented enrollee, a newly hired representative may request an extension of time for preparation of the oral argument and the Council must consider whether the extension is reasonable.
( d ) The Council may also request, but not require, CMS, the IRE, and/or the Part D plan sponsor to appear before it if the Council determines that it may be helpful in resolving the issues in the case.
( e ) The Council cannot draw any adverse inference if CMS, the IRE, and/or the Part D plan sponsor decide not to participate in the oral argument.
[74 FR 65363, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 82 FR 5138, Jan. 17, 2017]
41624.

#### BROWN v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

1. The third enumeration of error of the appellant is controlled adversely to her by the decision in Headnote 1 of *Brown v. State,*ante.

2. The second enumeration of error of the appellant is controlled adversely to the State by the decision in Headnotes *6363 and 4 in *Brown v. State,*supra, and for such reason the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

Submitted November 2, 1965

Decided November 10, 1965.

*Casey Thigpen,*for appellant.

*Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor,*for appellee.

3. The remaining enumeration of error complains of the failure of the court to charge the principles of law necessarily involved in the case, and in support of such enumeration of error it is argued that the court did not charge the jury what would constitute a violation of the law by the defendant. While the charge given may have been subject to criticism it was not .subject to the enumeration of error relied upon by the defendant.

*Case remanded for new trial.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.

[55 C. Cls. 466; 56 id., 482; 259 U. S. 75.]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in the court below. On plaintiff’s appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*and the Supreme Court decided:

A contract made during war for war material to be delivered by *&*specified date, which was as early as delivery would be practicable under the circumstances, is within the exception of Rev. *600Stats, sec. 3709, dispensing with advertising for purchases when public exigencies require immediate delivery.

The formalities of Rev. Stats., sec. 3709, are to protect the United States, and not the seller.

The fact that an offer and an acceptance by correspondence are both made in express contemplation of a more formal document to follow does not prevent their constituting a contract.

At a time when the price of copper to the Government was fixed under act of August 29, 1916, c. 418, sec. 2, 39 Stat. 649, at 234 cents per pound, plaintiff received from the War Department a proposal in writing for delivery of a stated amount at that price before a certain date under shipping orders to be supplied by the department and accepted it in writing at the department’s request and upon its advice that no payment could be made without such acceptance. *Held,*(a) A contract, and not a requisition under the national defense act of June 3, 1916, c. 134, sec. 120, 39 Stat. 213, which authorized, in addition to purchase, the obtaining of material by compulsory orders, for a fair and just compensation. (1») The plaintiff, having completed deliveries after alleged delays in shipping orders and after the Government price had been increased under the act of Aug. 29, 1916, *supra,*could not in respect of such deliveries claim freedom from the contract because of such delays and recover the difference between the new and contract prices upon the theory that the deliveries were compulsory. and called for a fair compensation under the national defense act and the fifth amendment, (c) Damages for the Government’s delay in performing could not be had upon a petition framed on the theory of a compulsory requisition, *(d)*The case was not within the act of March 2, 1919, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272, authorizing relief to contractors furnishing supplies under agreements not executed in the manner provided by law.

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 15,1922.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Fund IV
Financial Statements for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                       2,821,760
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   46,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              606,973,
<PP&E>                                      40,176,492<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                              22,792,555<F2>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,859,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,113,994
<BONDS>                                     20,938,160<F3>
<COMMON>                                     1,193,070<F4>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,859,084
<SALES>                                      7,108,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,108,711
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,817,955<F5>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,311,140
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,628)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,628)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,628)<F6>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes apartment complexes of $39,777,834 and deferred expenses of $398,658.
<F2>Includes depreciation of $22,689,200 and amortization of deferres expenses of
$103,355.
<F3>Represents mortgage notes payable.
<F4>Reprsents total equity of General and Limited Partners of ($270,478) and
($922,592), respectively.
<F5>Includes operating expenses of $3,080,309, real estate tax expenses of
$631,057, and depreciation and amortization of $2,106,589 and minority interest
of $1,244.
<F6>Net loss allocated ($216) General Partners, ($865) Original Limited Partners,
and ($20,547) to the Investor Limited Partners, for the year ended December 31,
1995.  Average net income per unit of Limited Partners Interest is (.68) on
30,000 units outstanding.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPublic Schedule...Public Schedule – April 8, 2024

# 									Public Schedule – April 8, 2024							

Public Schedule

Office of the Spokesperson

April 8, 2024

*****THE DAILY PUBLIC SCHEDULE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*********

 

**SECRETARY ANTONY J. BLINKEN**

**11:00 a.m.**Secretary Blinken meets with Israeli Opposition Leader Yair Lapid at the Department of State.**(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)**

**DEPUTY SECRETARY KURT M. CAMPBELL******

Deputy Secretary Campbell attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES RICHARD R. VERMA**

Deputy Secretary Verma attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.

**ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS JOHN BASS******

Acting Under Secretary Bass attends meetings and briefings at the Department of State.****

**BRIEFING SCHEDULE**

**1:15 p.m.**Department Press Briefing with Spokesperson Matthew Miller.(**OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)**

*The Department Press Briefing will be streamed live on the****Department homepage****and****YouTube Channel***.

Tags

Office of the SpokespersonThe Secretary of State

Back to Top
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 27 December 2004         

authorising methods for grading pig carcases in the Czech Republic

(notified by number C(2004) 2566)

(Only the Czech text is authentic)

(2005/1/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 of 13 November 1984 determining the Community scale for grading pig carcases (1), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The use of the following methods is hereby authorised for grading pig carcases pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 3220/84 in the Czech Republic:

The grading method ‘Zwei-Punkte-Messverfahren (ZP)’ may be applied only in slaughterhouses which do not exceed a weekly slaughtering of 200 pigs.

As regards the apparatus ‘Ultra FOM 300’ it is laid down that after the end of the measurement procedure it must be possible to verify on the carcase that the apparatus measured the values of measurement P2 on the site provided for in the Annex, Part 4, point 3. The corresponding marking of the measurement site must be made at the same time as the measurement procedure.

Article 2

Modifications of the apparata or the assessment methods shall not be authorised.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Czech Republic.

Done at Brussels, 27 December 2004.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 301, 20.11.1984, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 3513/93 (OJ L 320, 22.12.1993, p. 5).

(2)OJ L 285, 25.10.1985, p. 39. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC) No 3127/94 (OJ L 330, 21.12.1994, p. 43).

----

ANNEX

Methods for grading pig carcases in the Czech Republic

PART 1

Zwei-Punkte-Messverfahren (ZP)

PART 2

Fat-O-Meater (FOM)

PART 3

Hennessy Grading Probe (HGP 4)

PART 4

ULTRA-FOM 300

----
§ 53.154 Waiver of right of recovery. In determining whether there is good cause for waiver of any right of recovery which he may have against a nonprofit private agency by reason of any payments made pursuant to a loan guarantee, or against a public agency by reason of the failure of such agency to make payments of principal and interest on a direct loan to such agency, the Secretary shall take into consideration the extent to which: ( a ) The facility with respect to which the loan guarantee or direct loan was made will continue to be devoted by the applicant or other owner to use for the purpose for which it was constructed or another public or nonprofit purpose which will promote the purposes of the Act;
( b ) There are reasonable assurances that for the remainder of the repayment period of the loan other public or non-profit facilities not previously utilized for the purpose for which the facility was constructed will be so utilized and are substantially equivalent in nature and extent for such purposes; and
( c ) Such recovery would seriously curtail the provision of medical services to persons in need of such services in the area.
[37 FR 182, Jan. 6, 1972]
Order entered July 29 , 2014

In The 

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

No. 05
- 14
- 00434
- CV WORK IT OUT, LLC., Appellant
V.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MOR TGAGE ASSOCIATION A/K/A FANNIE MAE , ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 191st Judicial D istrict Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 09125


### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s July 28, 2014 unopposed third motion for an extension of time
to file a brief. We ORDER Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk, to file, on or before August 6, 2014 , a supplemental clerk’s record containing Work It Out, LLC’s response to the motion for summary judgment. Appellant shall file its brief on or before August 13, 2014 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time will be granted a bsent extraordinary circumstances.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
§ 484.225 Annual update of the unadjusted national, standardized prospective payment rates. ( a ) CMS annually updates the unadjusted national, standardized prospective payment rate on a calendar year basis (in accordance with section 1895(b)(1)(B) of the Act).
( b ) For 2007 and subsequent calendar years, in accordance with section 1895(b)(3)(B)(v) of the Act, in the case of a home health agency that does not submit home health quality data, as specified by the Secretary, the unadjusted national, standardized prospective rate is equal to the rate for the previous calendar year increased by the applicable home health market basket index amount minus 2 percentage points. Any reduction of the percentage change will apply only to the calendar year involved and will not be taken into account in computing the prospective payment amount for a subsequent calendar year.
( c ) For CY 2020, the national, standardized prospective 30-day payment amount is an amount determined by the Secretary. CMS annually updates this amount on a calendar year basis in accordance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
[80 FR 68717, Nov. 5, 2015, as amended at 83 FR 56629, Nov. 13, 2018; 84 FR 60645, Nov. 8, 2019]
- Office Home
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Reports

HomeOffice of Diversity and Inclusion...Remarks and Releases—Office of Diversity and Inclusion

# 						Remarks and Releases—Office of Diversity and Inclusion					

31 items
Clear All Filters

## View collection by:

Select a Year2024202320222021

Select a MonthJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember

Select a SpeakerAntony J. BlinkenDorothy McAuliffeJennifer R. LittlejohnMonica Medina

Select a LocationCosta RicaMexicoPalauPortugalSwedenTaiwanUnited States

Select a Release TypeDipNoteDipNote: Climate and EnvironmentDipNote: Human Rights and DemocracyDipNote: Science, Technology, and InnovationFPC BriefingFact SheetMedia NoteOther ReleasePress StatementRemarks

Select a Bureau/OfficeBureau of African AffairsBureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and LaborBureau of East Asian and Pacific AffairsBureau of Educational and Cultural AffairsBureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsForeign Press CentersOffice of Diversity and InclusionOffice of Public LiaisonOffice of the Legal AdviserOffice of the Special Representative for Racial Equity and JusticeOffice of the SpokespersonSubnational Diplomacy UnitThe Secretary of State

          -    		Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley	  April 12, 2021 

previous page1234

Back to Top
Northshore Mining

 201 1 performance testing , average production rate: o Furnace 11

– 250 LT/hr o Furnace 12

– 263 LT/hr  2010 performance testing, average production rate: o Furnace 11

– 246 LT/hr o Furnace 12

– 250 LT/hr  Facility suggested following limits: o 2.0 lbs SO 2/mmBtu o equivalent to 30 0 lb/hr per furnace based on furnace heat input rating of 150 mmBtu o This limit is not based on the performance of a wet - walled electrostatic precipitator (which is in operation at the facility)  MPCA set BART at 0. 0651 lb SO 2 /LT for each line , measured on a 30 - day rolling average; applies when burning natural gas  Converting MPCA limit based on 2011 performance testing production rates gives: o Furnace 11

– 16.3 lb SO 2/hr , measured on a 30 - day rolling average; applies when burning natural gas o Furnace 12

– 17.1 lb SO 2/hr , measured on a 30 - day rolling average; applies when burning natural gas  Also require that the emissions from SV101, SV102, SV103, SV104, SV105, SV111, SV112, SV113, SV114, and SV115 be subject to an 80.0 percent emis sion reduction requirement.
§ 52i.10 How shall a grantee calculate the amount of endowment fund income that it may withdraw and spend? A grantee awarded funds under this part shall calculate the amount of endowment fund income that it may withdraw and spend at a particular time as follows: ( a ) On each date that the grantee plans a withdrawal of endowment fund income, the grantee must determine the amount of the income by calculating the value of the fund that exceeds the endowment fund corpus.
( b ) If the total value of the endowment fund exceeds the endowment fund corpus, the grantee may withdraw and spend the excess amount, *i.e.,* the endowment fund income, in accordance with § 52i.9.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6875

TREY ALEXANDER WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHARLES WILLIAMS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (6:19-cv-01065-DCC)

Submitted: November 19, 2019 Decided: November 22, 2019

Before WILKINSON and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trey Alexander Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Trey Alexander Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Williams’ motions to appoint counsel 

and to compel discovery, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 13.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350



AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Chung Chi
Ng, the Chief Financial Officer of Guardforce AI Co., Limited (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The
Company’s Amendment No. 1 to annual report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Amendment No.
1”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information
contained in the Amendment No.1 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has executed this statement this 14th day of April 2022.



| | /s/ Chung Chi Ng                            
| | --------------------------------------------
| | Chung Chi Ng                                
| | Chief Financial Officer                     
| | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to Guardforce AI Co., Limited and will be retained by Guardforce AI Co., Limited and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.