alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00393-CR

Asel ABDYGAPPAROVA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001CR4918A

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on October 6, 2014. Two motions for 

extension of time have been granted, extending the deadline to December 15, 2014. This court’s 

order granting the second extension stated, “THIS IS THE FINAL EXTENSION OF TIME 

THAT THE APPELLANT WILL BE GRANTED.”

The clerk’s office of this court notified appellant’s attorney that the deadline for filing the 

brief had passed. In response to that notice, appellant’s attorney filed a third motion to extend 

time to file the appellant’s brief. The motion does not acknowledge the prior extensions or the 

order stating the last extension was a final extension. The motion is, however, GRANTED. 

Appellant’s attorney is ORDERED to file appellant’s brief in this court no later than January 15, 

2015, or this appeal will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing without further 

notice, and the trial court will be asked to consider whether sanctions against appellant’s attorney 

are appropriate. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). 

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 29th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S JUNE 30, 2000 AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW
STATEMENT, AND NOTES THERETO, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       16,311,820
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                              0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,333,434
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           686,188
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     910,363
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,241,805
<COMMON>                                         2,710,311
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                                0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              5,396,354
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   8,106,665
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             4,324,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        1,440,000
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                       94,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                              0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                         0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   5,277,140
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   19,241,805
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,254,903
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                69,163
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,783,764
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,852,927
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            401,976
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 124,100
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     526,076
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           242,451
<NET-INCOME>                                       283,625
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                              0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      283,625
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           399,070
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                0<F1>
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             374,981
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.17

<FN>
<F1>
 (1)Not reported on an interim basis.
</FN>

</TABLE>
No. 11-5009.

#### Latham *v.*Palin et al.

Sup. Ct. Alaska. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James R. Lavelle, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge,
Cotelligent, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such
Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Cotelligent, Inc.

Date: March 28, 2003          By: /s/ James R. Lavelle
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              James R. Lavelle
                              Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
§ 60-30.16 Appearances. ( a ) *Representation.* The parties or other persons or organizations participating pursuant to this part 60-30 have the right to be represented by counsel.
( b ) *Failure to appear.* In the event that a party appears at the hearing and no party appears for the opposing side, the party who is present shall have an election to present his evidence in whole or such portion thereof sufficient to make a prima facie case before the Administrative Law Judge. Failure to appear at the hearing shall not be deemed to be a waiver of the right to be served with a copy of the Administrative Law Judge's recommended decision and to file exceptions to it.
[LOGO]

        1000 First Interstate Center
        401 N. 31st Street
        P.O. Box 7108
        Billings, MT 59103




                         Independent Auditors' Consent
                         -----------------------------



The Board of Directors
Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp Incorporated

We consent to  incorporation  by reference in the  registration  statement  (No.
333-53543) on Form S-8 of Crazy Woman Creek Bancorp  Incorporated  of our report
dated  November 2, 2001  relating to the  consolidated  balance  sheets of Crazy
Woman Creek  Bancorp  Incorporated  and  subsidiary as of September 30, 2001 and
2000 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and
comprehensive  income,  and cash flows for the years then  ended,  which  report
appears in the  September  30, 2001 annual  report on Form 10-KSB of Crazy Woman
Creek Bancorp Incorporated.


                                        /s/KPMG LLP


Billings, Montana
December 18, 2001



[LOGO]  KPMG LLP, KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is
        a member of KPMG international, a Swiss association
#### State of California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Respondent, v 370 Lexington Avenue Realty Corp. *30et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[627 NYS2d 916]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on December 14, 1994, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Crane, J., with costs and disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.
#### § 301-11.31 Are laundry, cleaning and pressing of clothing expenses reimbursable?

Your agency may reimburse the expenses incurred for laundry, cleaning, and pressing of clothing as a miscellaneous travel expense for TDY within CONUS. However, you must incur a minimum of four consecutive nights lodging on official travel to qualify for this reimbursement. Laundry and dry cleaning expenses have not been removed from foreign per diem rates established by the Department of State, or from non-foreign area per diem rates established by the Department of Defense. Separate claims for laundry and dry cleaning expenses incurred in foreign areas and non-foreign areas are not allowed.

[FTR Amdt. 2016-02, 81 FR 63136, Sept. 14, 2016]
[Civ. No. 32539.

First Dist., Div. Two.

May 31, 1973.]

#### GILBERT DE LAO, Petitioner, v. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR THE SAN JOSE-MILPITAS JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE, Real Party in Interest.

*717Counsel

Sheldon Portman, Public Defender, and Rose E. Bird, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner.

Donald G. Grillen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Evelle J. Younger, Attorney General, Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Chief Assistant Attorney General, Doris H. Maier and Edward P. O’Brien, Assistant Attorneys General, and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attorney General, for Real Party in Interest.

Opinion

TAYLOR, P. J.

We treat this case as a companion to *Gonzalez*v. *Municipal Court*(1 Civ. 32757) *ante,*page 706 [108 Cal.Rptr. 612].

Petitioner, in a complaint filed on June 14, 1972, in the Municipal Court for the San Jose-Milpitas Judicial District of the County of Santa Clara, was charged with misdemeanor drunk driving on. June 11, 1972, in violation of section 23102 of the Vehicle Code. The complaint also charged petitioner with a prior conviction for violating section 23102, in the same court, on February 1, 1972.

Petitioner was successful on a motion to strike the prior from the complaint on the ground that he had not been fully advised of his constitutional rights prior to the entry of the guilty plea as required in *Boykin*v. *Alabama,*395 U.S. 238 [23 L.Ed.2d 274, 89 S.Ct. 1709], and *In re Tahl,*1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449].

Thereafter, the court, *on its own motion,*set aside the plea of guilty and vacated the judgment of conviction on the prior. When petitioner was re-arraigned upon the identical charge, he entered pleas of once in jeopardy and former conviction, which were denied by the court. Prior to the institution of this petition, petitioner sought, unsuccessfully, to secure a writ of prohibition in the superior court.

It is clear from the record that petitioner made no request, either express or implied, to vacate the judgment on the prior conviction referred to above, *718and that, for the reasons stated in oür holding in *Gonzalez,*his motion to strike an allegation of a prior from the complaint in the pending criminal proceeding may not be so construed.

Let a peremptory writ issue as prayed for.

Kane, J., and Rouse, J., concurred.

The petition of the real party in interest for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied September 26, 1973.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1991: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. VIDAL [ORDER], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Sm80I9REHc\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-20-1991-honeywell-international-inc-v-vidal-order-20-1991-order-8-17-2022_1992722\/\">20-1991: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. VIDAL [ORDER], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/08-17-2022-20-1991-honeywell-international-inc-v-vidal-order-20-1991-order-8-17-2022_1992722\/embed\/#?secret=Sm80I9REHc\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1991: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. VIDAL [ORDER], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"Sm80I9REHc\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"ORDER Posted: HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. v. VIDAL [ORDER](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1991 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David J. Johnson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement 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 covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other Certifying Officer's 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

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

c) presented in this quarterly report my 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 Officer's and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee
of the 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, process,
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 Officer's and I have indicated in this
quarterly 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.

                                   DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2006


                                   /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                   --------------------
                                   DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20
- 0321 JULIE A. AND SCOTT R. ILLINGHAM, DVID B AND GEORGINE L. FORGATCH, A

ND CHET WENZEL, Plaint iffs and Appellants, v. INTERMOUNTAIN INDUSTRIAL, INC., a Montana Corpor at io n,

Defendant and Appellee. ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the part ies having failed to jo int ly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERE D THAT **Matthew B. H**  **ayhurst , P.O. Box 9199, Missoula, MT 59807**  **- 9199,**  **(406)543 -**  **6646; m**  **hayhurst@boonekarlberg.com ,**  whose name appears next on th e list of attorneys desiring appo int me nt a s mediators fo r Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is h ereby appo int ed to co nduct th e mediat io n process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5 ), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time peri ods set f orth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appoint me nt . A true copy

o f this order is bein g mailed to co unsel of r ecord fo r th e parti es, or to th e parti es individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED thi s July

7, 2020.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Ni co le Lynn Siefert, Quentin M. Rhoades, 430 Ry man Street, Missoula, MT 59802, (406)721
- 9700, gmr@mo nt analawyer.com & eri ckson@mon

tanalawyer.com Peter Francis Lacny , Joseph Ray Casillas, , 201 West Main Street, Suite 201, Missoula, MT 59 802 , ( 40 6)728
- 0810, jr casillas@dmllaw.com , & placny@dmllaw.com Elizabeth L. Griffing , P.O. Box 157, Helena, MT 59604, (406)545
- 0499,

bgr iffin @axilo nlaw .comIA07/07/2020Case Number: DA 20-0321
No. 11-5008.

#### Lockley *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
411P15-2

#### State v. John W. Hearne

Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP15-829)

Dismissed
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2022-1412: Mallalieu v. McDonough - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"VtCuT3EVMr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1412-mallalieu-v-mcdonough-audio-uploaded\/\">2022-1412: Mallalieu v. McDonough<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/06-05-2023-2022-1412-mallalieu-v-mcdonough-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=VtCuT3EVMr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2022-1412: Mallalieu v. McDonough” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"VtCuT3EVMr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Mallalieu v. McDonough (mp3) Appeal Number: 2022-1412 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
/*!
 * Font Awesome Free 5.15.3 by @fontawesome - https://fontawesome.com
 * License - https://fontawesome.com/license/free (Icons: CC BY 4.0, Fonts: SIL OFL 1.1, Code: MIT License)
 */
@font-face{font-family:"Font Awesome 5 Brands";font-style:normal;font-weight:400;font-display:block;src:url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.eot);src:url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.eot?#iefix) format("embedded-opentype"),url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.woff2) format("woff2"),url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.woff) format("woff"),url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.ttf) format("truetype"),url(../webfonts/fa-brands-400.svg#fontawesome) format("svg")}.fab{font-family:"Font Awesome 5 Brands";font-weight:400}
§ 3030.264 Public hearing. ( a ) The Commission will hold a public hearing on the Postal Service's request. During the public hearing, responsible Postal Service officials will appear and respond under oath to questions from the Commissioners or their designees addressing previously identified aspects of the Postal Service's request and supporting information.
( b ) Interested persons will be given an opportunity to submit to the Commission suggested relevant questions that might be posed during the public hearing. Such questions, and any explanatory materials submitted to clarify the purpose of the questions, should be filed in accordance with § 3010.120 of this chapter, and will become part of the administrative record of the proceeding.
( c ) The timing and length of the public hearing will depend on the nature of the circumstances giving rise to the request and the clarity and completeness of the supporting materials provided with the request.
( d ) If the Postal Service is unable to provide adequate explanations during the public hearing, supplementary written or oral responses may be required.
# Comments on: 18-1209: DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. US [OPINION], Nonprecedential