alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued October 25 , 201 2

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 12
- 00113
- CV

——————————— FIVE STAR DEVELOPMENT RESORT COMMUNITIES, LLC , Appellant V. UHY ADVISORS FLVS, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. 2010
- 62355

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Five Star Dev elopment Resort Communities, LLC , has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the claims between the parties have been
settled

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). The motion contains a certificate of2

service, but does not contain a certificate of conference. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.
10.1 (a). Over t en days have passed , however, and appellee has not filed a response in opposition. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(b) , 10.3(a). No opinion has issued. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1( c ). Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Bland and Huddle

.

1 Appellant requests that the mandate issue immediately and that each party bear its respective costs of appeal. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.1 allows the Court to issue a mandate earlier than the timelines provided therein, “if the parties so agree, or for good cause on the motion of a party.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 18.1(c). Rule 42.1 provides that “[a]bsent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d). Appellant has not shown that an agreement exists between the parties with respect to the mandate or costs. Further, appe llant has not offered any basis on which to conclude that good cause exists to vary from the prescribed timelines under the Rules.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT DODSON

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1068 MCE CMK

vs.

DOLLAR TREE STORES, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Currently before the court is defendant Jason Matecki’s May 10, 2005 letter

requesting “the court to allow [him] to obtain counsel...” and “sufficient time to obtain his own

attorney.” Defendant Matecki is advised that he does not need the permission of the court to

obtain an attorney to represent him. However, defendant Matecki is advised that his search for

an attorney does not relieve him of the sanctions and deadlines imposed upon him in the Court’s

May 11, 2005 order. 

DATED: May 16, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 24 Filed 05/17/05 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 24 Filed 05/17/05 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-01068-MCE -CMK Document 24 Filed 05/17/05 Page 3 of 3
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4382 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to provide for 

environmental infrastructure in East Point, Georgia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2024 

Mr. OSSOFF introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

to provide for environmental infrastructure in East 

Point, Georgia. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘East Point Water In5 frastructure Enhancement Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EAST POINT, GEORGIA. 

7 Section 219(f)(136) of the Water Resources Develop8 ment Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 334; 121 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4382 IS

1 Stat. 1261; 136 Stat. 3817) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘$15,000,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$20,000,000’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
#### Darryl Orvett PAYNE-BEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer SWIGER, Sergeant; Officer Lewis, Hearing Officer; L.W. Huffman, Regional Director, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-7699.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 12, 2001.

Decided April 17, 2001.

Darryl Payne-Bey, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Darryl Payne-Bey appeals the district court’s order dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Payne-Bey v. Swiger,*No. CA-00-806-2 (E.D.Va. Nov. 2, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 10.7


 


JOINDER TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT


 


This JOINDER (this
“Joinder”) is made this 7th day of October, 2016 by Axar Master Fund Ltd., a Cayman Islands exempted
company (the “Joining Party”), pursuant to that certain Registration Rights Agreement (the “Agreement”)
dated as of October 1, 2014, by and among AR Capital Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”),
AR Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“AR Capital”) and the other individuals party thereto.
Capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


WITNESSETH:


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 5.2 of the Agreement, other persons or entities may become a party to the Agreement upon execution of a certificate of
joinder to the Agreement; and


 


WHEREAS, concurrently
with the execution and delivery of this Joinder, the Joining Party shall become a party to the Agreement and a Holder thereunder.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the agreements and obligations set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:


 


1.          The Joining Party
acknowledges and agrees that by execution and delivery of this Joinder, the Joining Party becomes a party to the Agreement and
a Holder thereunder, subject to the terms, conditions, restrictions, representations, warranties, obligations, agreements and covenants
set forth therein. The Joining Party hereby acknowledges that the Joining Party has received a copy of the Agreement.


 


2.          Notwithstanding the
place where this Joinder may be executed by the undersigned, the Joining Party expressly agrees that this Joinder shall be governed
by and construed under the laws of the State of Delaware as applied to agreements among Delaware residents entered into and to
be performed entirely within Delaware, without regard to the conflict of law provisions of such jurisdiction.


 


3.          If any provision
herein, or the application thereof to any circumstance of this Joinder, is held to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal by any
court, arbitration tribunal, government agency or regulatory body of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed deleted
from this Joinder or not applicable to such circumstance, as the case may be, and the enforceability, validity and legality of
the other provisions of this Joinder shall not be affected or impaired thereby.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     


     


    

 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned
has entered into this Joinder as of the date first above stated.


 


	 	JOINING PARTY:
	 	 
	 	AXAR MASTER FUND LTD.
	 	a Cayman Islands exempted company
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Andrew Axelrod
	 	 	Name: Andrew Axelrod
	 	 	Title: Director


 


[Signature Page to Joinder to Registration
Rights Agreement]
Exhibit 99.2

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

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

In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Schall,
Chief Financial Officer of Essex Property Trust, Inc.,the general partner of the registrant
Essex Portfolio, L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

/s/ MICHAEL J. SCHALL

Michael J. Schall
                  Chief Financial Officer

May 15, 2003

---
Estimated Flood Loss Potential 

Scenario 1: Average Home 

2,500 sqft, one-story home with possessions worth $50,000 

Interior Water Depth (Inches) Cost to Home Cost to Personal Property Combined Loss Potential 

1" $23,635 $3,172 $26,807

2" $23,720 $3,172 $26,892

3" $24,370 $4,917 $29,287

4" $31,345 $7,207 $38,552

5" $31,425 $13,914 $45,339

6" $37,260 $14,777 $52,037

7" $37,691 $17,700 $55,391

8" $38,122 $20,624 $58,746

9" $38,553 $23,547 $62,100

10" $38,983 $26,470 $65,453

11" $39,414 $29,394 $68,808

12" $39,845 $32,317 $72,162

24" $44,325 $43,001 $87,326

36" $47,905 $46,633 $94,538

48" $53,355 $50,000 $103,355

Scenario 2: Small Home 

1,000 sqft, one-story home with possessions worth $20,000 

Interior Water Depth (Inches) Cost to Home Cost to Personal Property Combined Loss Potential 

1" $9,550 $1,269 $10,819

2" $9,620 $1,269 $10,889

3" $9,820 $1,970 $11,790

4" $12,730 $2,924 $15,654

5" $12,780 $5,474 $18,254

6" $15,300 $5,861 $21,161

7" $15,508 $7,019 $22,527

8" $15,717 $8,177 $23,894

9" $15,925 $9,335 $25,260

10" $16,133 $10,493 $26,626

11" $16,342 $11,652 $27,994

12" $16,550 $12,810 $29,360

24" $19,500 $17,160 $36,660

36" $21,100 $18,731 $39,831

48" $23,400 $20,000 $43,400
 

 

 

 

Scenario 3: Large Home 

5,000 sqft, multi-story home with possessions worth $100,000 

Interior Water Depth (Inches) Cost to Home Cost to Personal Property Combined Loss Potential 

1" $47,110 $6,344 $53,454

2" $47,220 $6,344 $53,564

3" $48,620 $9,828 $58,448

4" $62,370 $14,337 $76,707

5" $62,500 $27,996 $90,496

6" $73,860 $29,645 $103,505

7" $74,662 $35,512 $110,174

8" $75,463 $41,380 $116,843

9" $76,265 $47,247 $123,512

10" $77,067 $53,114 $130,181

11" $77,868 $58,982 $136,850

12" $78,670 $64,849 $143,519

24" $85,700 $86,075 $171,775

36" $92,580 $93,124 $185,704

48" $103,280 $100,000 $203,280

Source: National Flood Services 

Estimates based on national FEMA flood loss tables of cash value loss.
Order entered January 30 , 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00394 - CR SEDRIC DEJUAN BRAXTON , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 19 5th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 21 - 99731 - N

O RDER W e REINSTATE t he app e al

. On December 20, 2022, the Court entered an order granting the State ’ s motion to abate the appeal to allow the trial court to examine the jud gment and determine whet her the trial cou rt should file a new judgment using the correct judgment form. On January 25, 2023, a supp lemental clerk ’ s reco rd was filed containing a new judgment

.– 2

–

Because appellant filed his brief in reliance upon the original judgment , we will allow appellant the opportunity to file an amended or suppl emental b rief if he so desires. We OR D ER that any amended or supplemental brief be filed by February 27, 2023

. We ORDER the State ’ s brief filed by March 29 , 2023 . Because the Sta te ’ s brief was due initially o n September 25, 2022 , and thus was long overdue at the time the State filed its motion for abatement , the Co urt may set the case for submission without a State ’ s brief if the State ’ s brief is not filed by March 29 , 2023

.

/ s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Medical Products,
Inc. (the "Corporation") for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned, the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation, hereby certifies:

         (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
Corporation.




/s/ Marshall B. Hunt
---------------------------
Marshall B. Hunt
Chairman of the Board
and Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,
or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Horizon Medical
Products, Inc. and will be retained by Horizon Medical Products, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EUROPEAN MICRO HOLDINGS, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 15.01

                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

We have  reviewed  the  accompanying  consolidated  condensed  balance  sheet of
European Micro Holdings,  Inc. and consolidated  subsidiaries as of December 31,
1999, and the related statements of operations for the three-month and six-month
periods  then  ended,  and the  related  consolidated  condensed  statements  of
stockholders'  equity and cash flows for the six-month period then ended.  These
financial statements are the responsibility of the company's management.


We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute  of  Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review  of  interim  financial
information consists principally of applying analytical  procedures to financial
data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible  for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with  generally  accepted  auditing  standards,  the  objective  of which is the
expression of an opinion  regarding the financial  statements  taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.


Based on our review, we are not aware of any material  modifications that should
be made to the accompanying consolidated condensed financial statements for them
to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

As  disclosed  in Notes 5 and 6, the  Company  was in  default  with  respect to
certain loan  covenants in two of its line of credit  agreements and a term loan
agreement.  The Company's  non-compliance with such covenants has been waived by
the lender for the  December  31, 1999  reporting  period.  Given the  Company's
current and expected  operating  results,  it is likely that the Company will be
out  of  compliance  with  such  covenant  requirements  at the  next  quarterly
reporting  date. As a result,  the Company is in  discussion  with the lender to
amend the loan agreements to adjust the financial covenant  requirements.  While
management   believes  such   discussions   will  result  in  amended   covenant
requirements  which  the  Company  will  be  able to  achieve,  there  can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in these negotiations.

We have  previously  audited,  in accordance  with generally  accepted  auditing
standards,  the consolidated balance sheet of European  Microholdings,  Inc. and
subsidiaries  as of June 30, 1999,  and the related  consolidated  statements of
operations,  shareholders'  equity,  and cash flows for the year then ended (not
presented  herein);  and in our report dated  August 20,  1999,  we expressed an
unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion,
the information set forth in the  accompanying  consolidated  condensed  balance
sheet at June 30, 1999, is fairly stated, in all material respects,  in relation
to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/ KPMG LLP
KPMG LLP


Nashville, TN
February 6, 2000, except as to notes 5 and 6 which are as of February 14, 2000.
Exhibit 32.2

ESSEX PORTFOLIO, L.P.

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

In connection with this quarterly report of Essex Portfolio, L.P. on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Schall, Chief
Financial Officerof Essex Property Trust, Inc., the general partner of
the registrant Essex Portfolio, L.P., hereby certify as of the date hereof,
solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

August 9, 2004

By: /s/ MICHAEL J. SCHALL

Michael J. Schall
                  Chief Financial Officer

---
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 17, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

and request to stay the scheduling order. Plaintiff alleged that on March 25, 2006, he was placed

in administrative segregation (ad seg) after being accused of threatening a correctional officer. 

Plaintiff alleged that he did not have access to his legal property.

On May 11, 2006, the court issued an order construing plaintiff’s motion for

injunctive relief as a request for a protective order. The court ordered plaintiff to inform the

court within twenty days whether he had been granted access to his legal property regarding this

action.

On June 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a response to the May 11, 2006, order. Plaintiff

stated that on May 16, 2006, he was released from ad seg. Plaintiff stated that he was issued all

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/03/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

of his legal property but for one box, which contained some of his papers regarding the instant

action. Plaintiff stated that he was told that this box was in the ad seg property room but there

was no current regular ad seg property officer. 

On June 21, 2006, the court ordered plaintiff to inform the court within ten days

whether he had received his missing box of legal property. Ten days passed and plaintiff did not

respond to the June 21, 2006, order. Accordingly, the court presumes that plaintiff has received

all of his legal property regarding the instant action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s April 17, 2006, motion

for injunctive relief, construed as a motion for a protective order, is denied.

DATED: 8/2/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ggh:kj

high887.po

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 57 Filed 08/03/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           75746
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7018
<ALLOWANCES>                                       178
<INVENTORY>                                       5099
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88863
<PP&E>                                            6065
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1984
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   94201
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            39671
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            25
<OTHER-SE>                                       53025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     94201
<SALES>                                           4888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5038
<CGS>                                             2426
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2535
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    87
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    26
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 255
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (869)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>