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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00166-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 362nd District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-9876-362

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

DIANE BOZANICH RATLEY, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM DAVID RATLEY, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this divorce case, Diane Bozanich Ratley attempts to appeal from the trial 

court’s “Order on Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc” correcting the trial court’s

“Order for Appointment of Realtor,” which appointed a realtor to list and sell the 

Ratleys’ marital residence. Because neither order appeared to be a final judgment or an

appealable interlocutory order, we notified appellant of our concern that we lack

jurisdiction over this appeal. We informed her that unless she or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal filed a response within ten days showing grounds for continuing 

the appeal, we would dismiss it for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

44.3. Ten days have passed, and we have received no response.

We have jurisdiction to consider appeals only from final judgments and from 

certain interlocutory orders made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v.

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 

Ann. § 51.014(a). Unless a statutory exception applies, an order that does not dispose 

of all pending parties and claims remains interlocutory and unappealable until a final 

judgment is signed. See Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195; In re Roxsane R., 249 S.W.3d 764, 

774–75 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, orig. proceeding).

Here, neither order is a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order, and

we thus dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

43.2(f).
3

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Delivered: September 23, 2021
**HOME | 	  ABOUT US | 	  CONTACT | 	  REGIONAL MANAGERS**Nautical Charts & Pubs****Surveys & Wrecks****GIS & Other Products****Research & Development****Customer Service****Business Opportunities****Education****NGA Chart: 81002          Scale: 1,000,000          Edition: 6          Edition Date: 31-MAR-90          CORRECTED TO NTM:  1990/30**Notice Listing-  **Click the +/- buttons and drag the slider tool (solid triangle) 				to zoom in and out.** 
-  **Click the arrow buttons to pan left/right and up/down.** 
-  **Drag 				the navigation box in the upper left hand corner to move around 				the chart image.								This chart display or derived product can be used as a planning or analysis tool and may not be used as a navigational aid. 								NOTE: Use the official, full scale NGA nautical chart for real navigation whenever possible.  These are available from authorized 				NGA nautical chart sales agents.  Screen captures of the on-line viewable charts available here do NOT fulfill chart carriage 				requirements for regulated commercial vessels under Titles 33 and 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations.								Adobe Flash Player		  		is required to view the chart image.				Powered by Zoomify.** 
Privacy  |  Disclaimer  |  NOAA's National Ocean Service  |  NOAA  |  U.S. Department of Commerce **
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed February 13, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01404-CV 

APPALACHIAN BASIN MINERALS, LP, BRIGHAM MINERALS, LLC, 

CARROLLTON MINERAL, PARTNERS III, LP, CARROLLTON MINERAL 

PARTNERS III-B, LP, CIC MINERALS, LP, HDBC INVESTMENTS, LIMITED, 

MCCROW ENERGY PARTNERS II, LLC, PENNMARC RESOURCES, LP, 

PENNMARC RESOURCES II, LP, AND WILDES MINERAL INTERESTS, LLC, AND 

SHEPHERD ROYALTY, LLC, Appellants 

V. 

BRENCO OIL, INC., ELLICOTT, INC., MICHAEL D. SCHREINER, MICHAEL

RAVEN, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-06199 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Nowell 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss All Claims and Parties With 

Prejudice. We grant the motion. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, we vacate the trial court’s 

judgment without regard to the merits, dismiss this proceeding with prejudice, dismiss the 

underlying proceeding with prejudice, and order that each party bear its own costs and expenses. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). 

181404F.P05 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

APPALACHIAN BASIN MINERALS, LP, 

BRIGHAM MINERALS, LLC, 

CARROLLTON MINERAL, PARTNERS 

III, LP, CARROLLTON MINERAL 

PARTNERS III-B, LP, CIC MINERALS, 

LP, HDBC INVESTMENTS, LIMITED, 

MCCROW ENERGY PARTNERS II, 

LLC, PENNMARC RESOURCES, LP, 

PENNMARC RESOURCES II, LP, AND 

WILDES MINERAL INTERESTS, LLC, 

AND SHEPHERD ROYALTY, LLC, 

Appellants 

No. 05-18-01404-CV V. 

BRENCO OIL, INC., ELLICOTT, INC., 

MICHAEL D. SCHREINER, MICHAEL 

RAVEN, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-06199. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. 

Justices Whitehill and Nowell participating. 

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the parties’ Joint Motion 

to Dismiss All Claims and Parties With Prejudice, VACATE the trial court’s judgment without 

regard to the merits, DISMISS this proceeding with prejudice, and DISMISS the underlying 

proceeding with prejudice. It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs and expenses. 

Judgment entered February 13, 2019.
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                                                                                                                                                            |   |                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                            |   |                            |   |
| Dated:                         March      13, 2008 | By:    | /s/ Richard      Domaleski |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                            |   | Richard      Domaleski          |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                            |   | Chief      Executive Officer    |   |
|                                                                                                                                                                            |   |                            |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S QUARTERLY
REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB/A FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         325,766
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,541,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                   140,000
<INVENTORY>                                    453,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,460,252
<PP&E>                                         888,757
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,119
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,453,801
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,182,941
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,165,545
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,453,801
<SALES>                                      4,154,311
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,154,311
<CGS>                                        3,591,485
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,591,485
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                235,334
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            237,325
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   237,325
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
January 2 4 , 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JOE GARZON , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00952

- CV V.

U.S. BANK NATIONAL A SSOCIATION , Appellee

____________________ Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on October 17, 2011. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by JOE
GARZON

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

Proposed Final Audit Report on the 

Kentucky State Democratic Central 

Executive Committee 

A12-05 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Federal Election 

Commission, do hereby certify that on April 08,2015, the Commission decided 

by a vote of 6-0 to approve the Proposed Final Audit Report on the Kentucky 

State Democratic Central Executive Committee, as recommended in the 

Memorandum from the Chief Compliance Officer and Audit Division dated 

April 2,2015. 

Commissioners Goodman, Hunter, Petersen, Ravel, Walther, and Weintraub 

voted afliimatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

M i ^6 

Date Shawn Woodhead Werth 

Secretary and Clerk of the i ssion
[4910-I3-PI

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "CUJU<ESrE; IlOloTl"",n'OOL Federal Aviation Administration 

### 11[P-T. 

# T

IS(; SV"OOL infonnation (MeAl) originated by an aviation authority ofanother country to identify Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model Avro 146-RJ an

# :9 SAe 146Airplanes 

# d';;/.~ ACTION: Notice ofproposed rulemaking (NPRM). ZJ {~{/ ~OIIl"'G SI" 180L SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) forthe product
- 

# '7
NITIA'-""IG listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness 

# C.?t-- m AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 14CFR ParI 39 

### IDocketNo.FAA~**; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-012-AD] 

# ';rc;IO- O}.').;l.. RlN 2120-AA64



## o Apotential fleetwide problem has been identifled regarding the interchanging ofwing links on all SAe 146 & AVRO 146-RJ aircraft during scheduled maintenance. Some operators erroneously believed that these parts were interchangeable. The effects ofchanging winglinks has resulted in either a shorter or longer 'wing link being fitted, which introduces local stresses in the wing top and bottom surfaces local to rib 2, wing links and wing link fitting attachment and the fuselage local to Frames 26 and 29. This condition, ifnot corrected, could result in a reduction of structural integrity ofthe fuselage/wing attachment with possible catastropbic consequences. condition as; and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe ,,~~~- t

## t't

KOUTIN'; SYM 

### TI, INIT'AJ's','G The unsafe condition could result in loss ofawing or controllability of the airplane. proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition
Exhibit 13.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2011 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date: September 26, 2011



/s/ Din Dayal JalanName: Din Dayal JalanTitle: Chief Financial Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, and is not being filed either as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure statement, and is not to be incorporated by reference into the Report or any other filing of the Company, whether made before or after the
date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. The foregoing certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject
to the liabilities of Section 18 or Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
§ 2522.740 How will the Corporation use my evaluation? Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 46034 , May 28, 2024.
Cross Reference
Link to a correction published at 89 FR 66615 , Aug. 16, 2024.
The Corporation will consider the evaluation you submit with your application as follows: ( a ) If you do not include with your application for AmeriCorps funding a summary of the evaluation, or the evaluation itself, as applicable, under § 2522.730, the Corporation reserves the right to not consider your application.
( b ) If you do submit an evaluation with your application, the Corporation will consider the results of your evaluation in assessing the quality and outcomes of your program.
[70 FR 39603, July 8, 2005]
EXHIBIT 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Varsity Group Inc. (the
Company) hereby certifies that the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                         |  |                              
|------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: November 15, 2004 |  | /s/ Eric J. Kuhn             
|                         |  | Eric J. Kuhn                 
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                         |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Nathaniel W. Maxwell, Respondent, *v.*Dexter Sulphite Pulp and Paper Company et al., Appellants.

*Maxwell*v. *Dexter Sulphite Pulp & Paper Go.,*127 App. Div. 945, affirmed.

(Submitted November 24, 1909;

decided December 14, 1909.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered July 22, 1908, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to restrain the floating of loose logs on a certain portion of the Black river.

*Elon R. Brown*and *Henry H. Babcock*for appellants.

*A. E. Kilby*for respondent.

J udgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Vann, Wekner and Chase, JJ.
#### Faucett v. Nichols, appellant.

*Innkeepers—statutory construction—Laws*1866, *chap.*658.

The negligence intended in the words, “and occurred without the fault or negligence of such innkeeper,” in Laws 1866, chapter 658, section 1, limiting the liabilities of innkeepers for loss by fire of the property of guests, is that • which precedes, induces or facilitates the fire, and not negligence afterward.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury. The action was brought in Steuben county by Henry Faucett against Frederick S. Nichols to recover the value of a span of horses, buggy and other property destroyed by fire while in defendant’s hotel barn. The defense -was that the fire in question was the work of an incendiary, and occurred without the negligence of the innkeeper.

*Geo. B. Bradley,*for appellant.

The negligence referred to in the statute has reference only to the loss or destruction following the act of setting the fire. *People*v. *Utica Ins. Co.,*15 Johns. 358, 380; *Tonnele*v. *Hall,*4 N. Y. 140, 144.

*W. B. Buggies,*for respondent.

E. Darwin Smith, J.,

While I think that the jury might not unreasonably have found that the fire which destroyed defendant’s barn and the plaintiff’s span of horses, buggy and harness was the work of an incendiary, I do not see any substantial ground upon which their verdict can be disturbed. The evidence offered and excluded scarcely tended, or any of it, to show that the fire was set by an incendiary. The offer to show an attempt to fire another building in the village the same night was a slight and an inconsequential circumstance. It would not have tended to prove that the defendant’s barn was fired by an incendiary. Nor would the fact that the defendant had property burned and destroyed not insured have tended to prove such fact. This proof might have tended to establish the fact that the defendant was not privy or accessory to the burning of his building, if such charge had been made. The charge was correct on the question of negligence. The negligence intended *598in the statute to limit the liability of innkeepers (Laws 1866, chap. 658, § 1), in the words used, “that such loss or destruction was the work of an incendiary and occurred without the fault or negligence of such innkeeper,” is negligence which precedes, induces or facilitates the fire, not negligence afterward.

The case seems to have been very fairly tried and submitted to the jury, and I do not see in the case any error which would justify us in reversing the judgment.

The judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*
#### John Kramer, as Administrator of the Estate of Janos Urgyan, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*Buffalo Union Furnace Company, Respondent.

*Krrnner*v. *Buffalo Union Furnace Go.,*133 App. Div. 415, appeal dismissed.

(Submitted October 11, 1909 ;

decided October 26, 1909.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 7, 1909, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to set aside the service of the summons in the above entitled action upon the defendant and granted said motion.'

*533
      *Charles Newton*for appellant.

*Alfred L. Becl&er*for respondent.

Appeal dismissed, with costs, on authority of *Van Arsdale*v. *King*(155 N. Y. 325); no opinion.

■ Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Edward T. Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Willard Bartlett, Hisoock and Chase, JJ.
# CE2010016EN.01008202.xml

| 22.1.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 16/82 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 16/82

---

Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ***

P6_TA(2008)0534

European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 November 2008 on the draft Council decision concerning the conclusion of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (9196/2008 — C6-0215/2008 — 2008/0048(AVC))

(2010/C 16 E/27)

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (9196/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (9196/2008),

| — | having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 61(c) of the EC Treaty (C6-0215/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Article 61(c) of the EC Treaty (C6-0215/2008),

| — | having regard to Rules 75 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 75 and 83(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0428/2008), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A6-0428/2008),

1.   Gives its assent to conclusion of the Convention;

2.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

---
#### In the Matter of proving the Last Will and Testament of George Pfister, *Deceased*.

Decree of surrogate affirmed, with costs.
§ 800.502 MSP issuer internal claims and appeals. ( a ) *Processes.* MSP issuers must comply with the internal claims and appeals processes applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers under 45 CFR 147.136(b).
( b ) *Timeframes and notice of determination.* An MSP issuer must provide written notice to an enrollee of its determination on a claim brought under paragraph (a) of this section according to the timeframes and notification rules under 45 CFR 147.136(b) and (e), including the timeframes for urgent claims. If the MSP issuer denies a claim (or a portion of the claim), the enrollee may appeal the adverse benefit determination to the MSP issuer in accordance with 45 CFR 147.136(b).