alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 29, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00236-CV

———————————

RAMESH KAPUR, DBA AIC MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant

V.

CASSANDRA PLEASANT, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1013763

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ramesh Kapur dba AIC Management Company, appeals from a 

final judgment, signed December 11, 2013. The clerk’s record was filed on April 

1, 2014. On May 2, 2014, the court reporter advised that appellant had not made 

arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. Thereafter, this Court issued a 
2

notice to appellant that if he did not make arrangements to file the reporter’s record 

by June 4, 2014, we would order appellant to file his brief and this Court would 

consider those issues not requiring a reporter’s record.1 A second notice issued on 

November 6, 2014, directing appellant to file the reporter’s record by December 8, 

2014, or the court would order appellant’s brief due and would consider those 

issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No record was filed.

On February 8, 2015, this Court issued an order, advising appellant that we 

were setting appellant’s brief due thirty days from the date of the order and that we 

would consider issues not requiring a reporter’s record. No brief was filed. On 

April 15, 2015, this Court issued a notice that the brief was late and that the appeal 

would be dismissed for want of prosecution unless, within ten days from the date 

of notice, appellant filed his brief with a motion for extension of time, or filed a 

motion for extension of time, stating facts reasonably explaining the failure to 

timely file his brief and that appellee was not significantly injured by appellant’s 

failure to timely file his brief. No brief or motion was filed.

Because appellant has not filed a brief, despite numerous notices from this 

Court that the brief was due, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). Any pending motions are denied as moot.

 

1

 This notice was returned to sender (this Court); however a clerk of this Court spoke 

to appellant on the telephone and he assured her that the address on file was 

correct. On November 5, 2014, this Court sent appellant a notice that he could 

receive notices from the Court by email.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 45 (Thursday, March 8, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4133]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services


Privacy Act of 1974; Retraction of a Modified System of Records

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).

ACTION: Notice of Retraction of a Modified System of Records.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CMS inadvertently 
published a modification to its existing system of records titled 
``Medicare Drug Data Processing System (DDPS)'' System No. 09-70-0553 
in the Federal Register on Thursday, February 22, 2007 (72 FR 7993). 
CMS is withdrawing the February 22, 2007 modification to the DDPS 
system of records pending the conclusion of rulemaking that will 
support the routine uses of data contained in the system of records. 
The existing notice established at 70 FR 58436 (October 6, 2005) will 
remain the effective notice for the DDPS system of records.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries may be directed to: CMS 
Privacy Officer, Division of Privacy Compliance, Enterprise 
Architecture and Strategy Group, Office of Information Services, CMS, 
Room N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. 
He can also be reached at 410-786-5357 or by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e196808d958493cf92958e8f84a1828c92cf898992cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3a4b2bfa7b6a1fda0a7bcbdb693b0bea0fdbbbba0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
William Saunders,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Information Services, Centers for 
Medicare & Medicaid Services.
 [FR Doc. E7-4133 Filed 3-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

PENNSYLVANIA STATE EMPLOYEES 

CREDIT UNION,

Respondent

v.

MARGARET M. STUSKI, A/K/A 

MARGARET STUSKI BOND AND CRAIG 

GEORGE BOND,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 241 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 6th day of November, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Keane, Inc. for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J. Leahy Executive Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: March 15, 2006 |  | /s/JOHN J. LEAHYJohn J. Leahy
Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration and Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
W ritte n state m ents distri b ute d at works hop

- Kyle Pitsor- National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), (see Comment Number 48) - Philip J. Hopkinson- HVOLT Inc. (see Comment Number 49) - Steven Nadel and Anna Shipley- American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), (see Comment Number 50) - David Brender- Copper Development Association Inc. (CDA), (see Comment Number 51) - Harry Misuriello- Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), (see Comment Number 52)
Abatement Order filed May 24 , 2022

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00679

- CV

____________ TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY , Appellant

V.
RATAN ZAKIR , Appellee

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texa s Trial Cour t Cause No. 2018

- 90845



### ABATEMENT ORDER
On April 29, 2022, we directed the clerk of the 295 th District Court to deliver
to the Clerk of this court the original of Exhib it 5 ( a video record ing) to the Please
to the Jurisdiction filed August 20, 2020 . On May 10, 2022, we sent notice the

e xhibit had not been filed. No response has been received

.
R ule 34.6(f) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an appellant is entitled to a new trial when the reporter ’ s record or exhibits are l ost, under the following circumstances:
(1) if the appellant timely requested a reporter ’ s record; (2) if, without the appellant ’ s fault, a significant exhibit has b een lost or destroyed;2

(3) if the lost or destroyed exhibit is necessary to the appeal ’ s
re solution; and (4) if the lost or destroyed exhibit cannot be replace d either by agreement of the parties or with a copy determined by the trial court to accurately duplicate with reasonable certainty the original exhibit. Tex. R. Ap p. P. 34.6(f).
According ly, the trial court is directed to conduct a hearing to determine the following: (1) whether appellant timely requested a reporter ’ s record; (2) whether without the appellant ’ s fault, a significant exhibit ha s been lost or destroyed; (3)
whether the lost e xhibit is necessary to appellant ’ s appeal; and (4) whether the parties can agree on replacement of the missing exhibit with a cop y , or (5) if the
trial court can determine that a cop y a ccurately duplicate s the missing exhibit with reasonable certainty . The court is directed to reduce its findings to writing and to have a supplemental clerk ’ s record co ntaining those findings filed with the clerk of
this c ourt, together with a reporter ’ s record from the hearing, within 30 days of the
date of this order

.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this c ourt ’ s active docket. The app eal will be reinstated on this c ourt ’ s active docket when the
trial court ’ s findings and rec ommenda tions are filed in this court. The c ourt will
also consider a n appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or
the c ourt may reinstat e the appeal on its own motion. It is the responsibility of any party seeking reinstatement to request a hearing date from the trial court and to
schedule a hearin g in compliance with this c ourt ’ s order. If the parties do not request a hearing, the court c oordinator of the trial court shall set a hearing date and notify the parties of such date.3 PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot and Poissant

.
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 Said defendant is identified in the complaint as “Sergeant Caroll.” 1

 Said defendant is identified in the complaint as “Officer Corrouso.” 2

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOMMY ROY KEETON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0697 GEB JFM P

vs.

SERGEANT CAROLL, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

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

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Several matters are pending before the court.

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion

Requesting an Answer from the Courts.” In this document, plaintiff requests information

concerning the status of defendants Carroll and Carrozzo. After review of the record herein, 1 2

and good cause appearing, defendants Carroll and Carrozzo will be ordered to show cause why

sanctions should not be imposed for failure for failure to file an answer to the exhausted claims

in plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with the order of the district court filed March 22, 2006. 

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 67 Filed 08/02/06 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

 The findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the district court on March 3

22, 2006.

2

On April 20, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the prayer for relief

in his complaint. Specifically, plaintiff seeks to delete his prayer for injunctive relief and to add

a prayer for compensatory and punitive damages. Good cause appearing, defendants will be

directed to respond to plaintiff’s motion.

On May 30, 2006, plaintiff filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Permission to File A Motion for Reconsideration.” Plaintiff contends that “material new facts”

have emerged since this court issued findings and recommendations on February 10, 2006 on

defendants’ motion to dismiss, but he provides no information about what those facts might be or

how, if at all, such facts would provide grounds for reconsideration of the recommendations

made by this court. Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. 3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten days from the date of this order defendants Carroll and Carrozzo

shall show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to file an answer to

the exhausted claims in plaintiff’s complaint;

2. Within ten days from the date of this order defendants shall file and serve a

response to plaintiff’s April 20, 2006 motion to amend his prayer for relief; and

3. Plaintiff’s May 30, 2006 motion is denied.

DATED: July 31, 2006.

12

keet0697.osc

Case 2:04-cv-00697-ALA Document 67 Filed 08/02/06 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD   Document 15    Filed 01/30/06   Page 1 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD   Document 15    Filed 01/30/06   Page 2 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD   Document 15    Filed 01/30/06   Page 3 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD   Document 15    Filed 01/30/06   Page 4 of 5

Case 2:04-cv-01493-GEB-DAD   Document 15    Filed 01/30/06   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2012-07-26T12:39:02-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
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


In connection with the Annual Report of T & G2, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I James Farinella,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



By: /s/ James Farinella
    -------------------------------------
       James Farinella
       President, Chief Executive Officer
       and Chief Financial Officer
       March 30, 2004
================================================================================

EXHIBIT 32.1   PATIENT PORTAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.


     Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)



I, Kevin Kelly, President, and Director "principal executive officer") of
Patient Portal Technologies, Inc. (the "Registrant"), certify that to the best
of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A 1
for the period ended March 31, 2008 of the Registrant (the "Report"):

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a)[15(d)] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.



Dated: November 10, 2008             /s/ KEVIN KELLY
                                     ----------------------
                                     Kevin Kelly
                                     President and Director


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed 4/17/15 P. v. Orozco CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANDREW JOSEPH OROZCO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H041009

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1235740)

Defendant Andrew Joseph Orozco pleaded no contest to infliction of corporal 

injury on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1and criminal threats 

(§ 422). He was placed on probation and ordered to pay a number of fees and fines, 

including a $450 presentence investigation fee and a probation supervision fee “not to 

exceed” $50 per month. (See § 1203.1b.)

In his opening brief, defendant argued that the trial court erred by ordering him to 

pay the presentence investigation fee and probation supervision fee without any 

determination of his ability to pay those fees, without a waiver of his right to a hearing on 

ability to pay, and without substantial evidence of his ability to pay. Defendant 

acknowledged that he had not objected below to the imposition of these fees, but he 

argued that he did not thereby forfeit his appellate challenge.

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

However, as defendant acknowledges in his reply brief, his argument has been 

foreclosed by the recent decision in People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, which 

concluded it is appropriate “to place the burden on the defendant to assert noncompliance 

with section 1203.1b in the trial court as a prerequisite to challenging the imposition of 

probation costs on appeal. . . .” (Id. at p. 858.) Defendant concedes that based on

Trujillo, we must determine that he forfeited his challenge to the presentence 

investigation fee and probation supervision fee. We will therefore affirm the judgment.

Appellate counsel has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which this court 

ordered considered with the appeal. We have disposed of the habeas petition by separate 

order filed this day. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.387(b)(2)(B).)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
___________________________________________

BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

__________________________

MIHARA, J.

__________________________

MÁRQUEZ, J.
**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**





I,
      Gary
      G. Brandt , Chief Executive Officer of Solomon Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:





•    
      the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





•    
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for
      the periods presented therein.


/s/
              Gary
                  G. BrandtGary
                G. BrandtChief
                Executive Officer(principal
                executive officer)November
                15, 2007
SNAP STAKEHOLDER MEETING

September 11, 2015

9:30 A.M. –11:30 A.M. EDT

Washington Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

EPA is hosting a stakeholder meeting for interested stakeholders to exchange 

information on the Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program. On July 

20, 2015, EPA published a final rule in the Federal Register to change the listing 

status of various hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and HFC-containing blends that were 

previously listed as acceptable alternatives in specific end-uses in the aerosols, 

foam blowing, and refrigeration and air conditioning sectors. This rule is one of 

four recent actions, all of which support the President’s June 2013 Climate Action 

Plan which directs EPA to “use its authority through the Significant New 

Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in lowemissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals 

while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.”

AGENDA

1. Welcome & Introductions

2. Opening Remarks

3. The SNAP Program

a. HFCs & the Climate Action Plan 

b. Overview of Recent Actions

4. Open Dialogue: Additional Listings and Changes of Status

a. Discussion Questions

5. Wrap Up & Next Steps
KEY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

To help frame our discussion, please consider the following questions ahead of the 

meeting on September 11. We look forward to engaging in a discussion on these 

and other topics you may wish to raise.

 What sectors or end-uses need additional safer alternatives? 

 The SNAP program continues to receive submissions across various sectors.

o Are the recently listed alternatives leading to transitions?

o Are additional submissions anticipated (e.g., new chemicals, new 

blends, existing chemicals for new applications)?

 What barriers do companies face in transitioning to safer alternatives?

 Where a transition has been made, what benefits have you experienced from 

making the change? 

 How can SNAP continue to help “encourage private-sector investment in 

low-emissions technology?”

o A potential substitute is often submitted for approval for many enduses. Is it helpful for EPA to move forward with listing those end-uses 

where we have made a determination while we are still reviewing 

others? 

 Are there sectors EPA should explore for potential changes in status? 

o For end-uses EPA or stakeholders identify - what safer alternatives are 

being used today?

o Are there end-uses where safer alternatives are lacking?
No. 54654.

#### Chinese Arts & Crafts, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 988218-G (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the involved merchandise was made wholly of synthetic resin and the records in Abstracts 45795, 49907, 49908, 50188, and 50189 were incorporated herein. On the record presented and following the cited authorities, the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PrimeEnergy Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Beverly A. Cummings, Chief Financial Officer of PrimeEnergy Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(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 result of operations of the Company.



|                            
|----------------------------
|                            
|/S/      BEVERLY A.
CUMMINGS
|Chief Financial Officer     
|April 7, 2011