alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; Opinion Filed March 31, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00369
- CV
SENRICK WILKERSON , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 08
- 12857 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans Opinion by Justice Evans This is an appeal from a 2009 default judgment in a civil forf eiture proceeding. Appellant has filed a motion for out of time appeal asserting he “just learned” that the criminal charge t h at led to the forfeiture of certain of his property w as dismissed and the dismissal entitles him to a return of his property

. An appellate court, however, cannot enlarge the time for perfecting a civil appeal beyond the time allowed by the rules of appellate procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2; In re T.W. , 89 S.W.3d 641, 642 (Tex. App.

– Amarillo 2002, no pet.). The deadline
to file a notice of appeal runs from the date of judgment or, if notice of the judgment is not received within twenty days after the judgment is signed, from the date notice is received but no later than ninety days from the signing of the judgment. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 4.2, 26.1. Rule of appellate procedure 26.1 provides four time frames for filing the notice. See id. 26.1 . These time frames are based on the type of judgment or order being appeal ed and range from twenty days in– 2

– an accelerated appeal to six months in a restricted appeal. See id. Additionally, rule 26.3 provides for one fifteen

- day extension of time. See id. 26.3.
The judgment here i s being appealed five years after it was signed, outside any time frame provided by the rules. Accordingly, the appeal is untimely and appellant’s motion i s denied. And, because the appeal is untimely, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal and dismiss i t. See Harris Cnty. Toll Rd. Auth. v. Sw. Bell Tel. , 263 S.W.3d 48, 53 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1st
Di st.] 2006), affirmed on other grounds by , 282 S.W.3d 59 ( Tex. 2009).

140369F.P05 /David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

SENRICK WILKERSON, Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00369

- CV V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 08

- 12857. Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating.
In accordance wi th this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee The State of Texas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Senrick Wilkerson.

Judgment entered this 31st day of March, 2014.

/David Evans/ DAVID EVANS JUSTICE
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 Quarterly Report of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony Eppolito, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





(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 of the Company as of the dates indicated and results of operations of the Company for the period indicated.





Dated: May 16, 2011





/s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoVice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Hamelin, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
  1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|   
|---
|(1)
|   
|(2)

|By: |  | /s/ PAULHAMELIN
    
    Paul HamelinPresident
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------

March 1, 2010



---
Unassociated Document


    
Exhibit
      10.1

    
      


      ADDENDUM
        TO

      SECOND
        AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

      


      THIS
        ADDENDUM TO SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT
        AGREEMENT
        (the
“Addendum”)
        is
        made as of the 13th
        day of
        November, 2007 by and between UNIVERSAL
        SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC.,
        a
        Maryland corporation (the “Company”)
        and
HARVEY
        B. GROSSBLATT (the
        “Executive”).

      


      INTRODUCTORY
        STATEMENT

      


      The
        Company and Executive entered into a Second Amended and Restated Employment
        Agreement dated as of July 18, 2005, (the “Original
        Agreement”).
        The
        parties desire to extend the term of the Original Agreement for an additional
        one-year term.

      


      NOW,
        THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
        of
        which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

      


      A. All
        capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Addendum shall have the meanings
        set forth in the Original Agreement.

      


      B. The
        first
        sentence of Section 1(b) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended in it
        entirety to read as follows:

      


      Subject
        to Section 7, the Company shall employ the Executive pursuant to the terms
        hereof for the period commencing as of the date hereof and ending on July
        31,
        2009.

      


      C. In
        all
        other respects, the Original Agreement, as amended hereby, shall remain in
        full
        force and effect. 

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum as of the day and
        year
        first above written.

       

      
        	 	 	 
	 	UNIVERSAL
                SECURITY
                INSTRUMENTS, INC.
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ James
                B.
                Huff
	 	
                
James
                B. Huff, Vice President
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/
                Harvey B. Grossblatt
	 	
                
Harvey
                B. Grossblatt
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1254 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nitrocellulose. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 16, 2005 

Mrs. DOLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on nitrocellulose. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NITROCELLULOSE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.39.13 Cellulose nitrate (nitrocellulose, including collodions) 

(provided for in subheading 

3912.20.00) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 
2 

•S 1254 IS 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee,

v. MICHAEL J. THOMPSON, Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00480-TSE-1)

Submitted: July 8, 2009 Decided: August 14, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael J. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Christina Lundberg Medzius, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.PER CURIAM: Michael J. Thompson seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A); see United States v. Little , 392 F.3d 671, 680-81 (4th Cir. 2004) (applying ten-day appeal period to appeal of a Rule 35 order). Although the time limitations imposed by Rule 4(b) are not jurisdictional, United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), they “must be enforced by th[e] court when properly invoked by the government.” United States v. Mitchell , 518 F.3d 740, 744 (10th Cir. 2008). The Government has moved to dismiss Thompson’s appeal as untimely. The district court entered its order on December 8, 2008. Thompson asserts that he did not receive notice of the order until January 5, 2009. He filed his notice of appeal at the earliest on January 6, 2009, after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Thompson has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an

23 extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21789]



[[Page 44016]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Availability of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program, 
Draft Basin Conservation Plan for Public Review

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Eluid Martinez, on behalf 
of the Secretary of the Interior, has released the Draft Basin 
Conservation Plan for the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program 
for a public comment period. The Draft Conservation Plan was developed 
by the Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, appointed by the 
Secretary of the Interior in accordance with Title XII of Pub. L. 103-
434 authorizing the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program 
(Conservation Program). The Plan outlines objectives, problems and 
needs, and potential water conservation solutions. It provides 
guidelines, processes, and procedures to participate in the 
Conservation Program.

DATES: The Draft Conservation Plan will be available August 15, 1997. 
Written comments on the Plan will be accepted through October 31, 1997, 
at the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Columbia Area Office in Yakima, 
Washington, at the address indicated below.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Plan are available in public libraries 
throughout the Yakima River Basin or can be obtained by contacting 
Jerry Jacoby at the Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Columbia Area Office, 
Yakima River Basin, Water Enhancement Project, P.O. Box 1749, Yakima WA 
98907-1749.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry Jacoby, Resource Conservationist, (509) 575-5848, Ext. 282, or 
(800) 905-7565, Press 6.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Conservation Program is a voluntary 
program, structured to provide economic incentives with cooperative 
Federal, State, and local funding to stimulate the identification and 
implementation of structural and nonstructural water conservation 
measures in the Yakima River Basin. Improvements in the efficiency of 
irrigation water delivery and use will result in improved stream flows 
for fish and wildlife, and improve the reliability of water supplies 
for irrigation.

    Dated: August 12, 1997.
Walt Fite,
Area Manager, Upper Columbia Area Office.
[FR Doc. 97-21789 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M
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 New England  Bancshares,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Scott D. Nogles,
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,
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 results of
                  operations of the Company as of and for the period  covered by
                  the Report.




                                            Scott D. Nogles
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Scott D. Nogles
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            June 25, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21218]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2016-029]


City of Tacoma, Washington; Notice Establishing Comment Period 
for Complaint

August 6, 1997.
    On May 22, 1997, the Friends of the Cowlitz and CPR-Fish filed a 
document entitled ``Complaint for Noncompliance with Hydroelectric 
License.'' The complainants request, pursuant to 18 CFR 385.206 of the 
Commission's regulations, that the Commission find the City of Tacoma 
to be in violation of its license for the Cowlitz River Project No. 
2016, because of its alleged failure to maintain the number of adult 
fish returns as required by license Articles 37 and 57. Complainants 
also request that the Commission conduct a formal investigation of this 
matter in accordance with 18 CFR Part 1B; order a prompt hearing 
conducted on the record by a presiding officer under 18 CFR Part 385, 
Subpart E; enter a decision declaring Tacoma in violation of its 
license and require Tacoma to take certain specific actions to remedy 
its past and continuing license violations; and assess a civil penalty 
under 18 CFR Part 385, Subpart O, for each day Tacoma's alleged 
violations of the license continue.
    Pursuant to Rule 213(d) of the Commission's regulations, answers to 
complaints are due within 30 days after filing or, if noticed, after 
publication of the notice in the Federal Register, unless otherwise 
ordered.<SUP>1</SUP> In general, the Commission's policy is to publish 
notice in the Federal Register of complaints against hydroelectric 
licensees.<SUP>2</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.213(d). See also 18 CFR 385.202.
    \2\ 18 CFR 2.1(a)(1)(iii)(J).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person may file an answer, comments, protests, or a motion to 
intervene with respect to the complaint in accordance with the 
requirements of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 
385.211, 385.213, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to 
take with respect to the complaint, the Commission will consider all 
protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party 
to the proceeding. Any answers, comments, protests, or motions to 
intervene must be received no later than 30 days after publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21218 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
122 STAT. 3946 PUBLIC LAW 110–349—OCT. 7, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6437: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

July 29, 31, considered and passed House. 

Sept. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–349 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 200 North 

Texas Avenue in Odessa, Texas, as the ‘‘Corporal Alfred Mac Wilson Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CORPORAL ALFRED MAC WILSON POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 200 North Texas Avenue in Odessa, Texas, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘Corporal Alfred Mac Wilson 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Corporal Alfred Mac Wilson Post Office’’. 

Approved October 7, 2008. 

Oct. 7, 2008 

[H.R. 6437] 


etreine on CSHP91QD1 with PUBLIC LAWS
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22317]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 5728-016]


Sandy Hollow Power Company; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

August 18, 1997.
    An environmentsal assessment (EA) is available for public review. 
The EA is for an application to amend the Sandy Hollow Hydroelectric 
Project. The licensee proposes to change its method of water delivery 
to its authorized 160-kW generating unit. The EA finds that approval of 
the application would not constitute a major federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The Sandy 
Hollow Hydroelectric Project is located on the Indian River in 
Philadelphia Township, Jefferson County, New York.
    The EA was written by staff in the Office of Hydropower Licensing, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Copies of the EA can be viewed in 
the Public Reference Branch, Room 1C-1, of the Commission's offices at 
888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    For further information, please contact the project manager, Mr. 
John Novak, at (202) 219-2828.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22317 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Kerri, 

William Colbert 

<BCOLBERT@utah.gov> 

04/17/2006 01:04PM 

To Kerri Fiedler/P2/R8/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cynthia Cody/P2/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Joe Thomas 

cc <JOETHOMAS@utah.gov> 

bee 

Subject Re: Utah Dieseii/M SIP 

In response to your request, UDAQ is sending a written response. A copy is attached. If you 

need any additional information, please let me know. Thanks! 

-Bill 

Bill Colbert 

Utah Dept of Environmental Quality/Division of Air Quality 

Planning Branch/Mobile Source Section 

P.O. Box 144820 

150 North 1950 West 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 

Email: bcolbert@utah.gov 

Voice: (801) 536-4423 

Fax: (801) 536-0085 

>>> <Fiedler.Kerri@epamail.epa.gov> 3/13/2006 12:45 PM >>> 

Hi Bill, 

This email pertains to Utah's Diesel liM SIP. On January 20, 2005, I provided extensive 

comments on Utah's Diesel liM SIP, including suggestions on following the Voluntary Mobile 

Source Emissions Reductions Program (VMEP). On May 2, 2005, EPA commented on the 

DRAFT PM1 0 maintenance plans and requested that Utah withdraw the Diesel liM SIP 

submittal since the PM10 maintenance plans no longer rely on the emission reduction credit 

from the diesel liM program to demonstrate attainment or maintenance ofthe PM10 NAAQS. 

The state's response to EPA's May 2, 2005 comment was that UDEQ continues to seek EPA 

approval of the Diesel liM program and SIP. 

We have further reviewed the Utah Diesel liM SIP submittal and we reiterate that Utah 

should withdraw this request. This is a quick list of some of the deficiencies with this SIP: 

Section XXI 

1. The 20% pollution credit in the SIP attributable to the diesel liM program is not defendable, 

and no scientific basis has been provided either in the SIP or its technical appendices. 

2. There are no set opacity limits indicated in the SIP. 
3. We cannot approve locomotive requirements or idling ordinances. 

In addition, many of the appendices are incomplete and marked DRAFT such as those 

pertaining to opacity limits, equipment and test specifications, and inspection procedures, and 

liM cutpoints have yet to be determined. Without the specifics for these elements, the diesel liM 

submittal is a hollow shell. Furthermore, it is our understanding that Utah County has 

discontinued its diesel liM program. This SIP revision does not appear to meet the basic 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean Air Act; nor do we think our approval of the revision 

would even minimally strengthen the SIP. Therefore, we request that Utah withdraw this 

submittal so that we may avoid unnecessary rulemaking. 

Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to discuss this further. 

Sincerely, 

Kerri Fiedler 

303.312.6493 

DAQP·017·06_Attachment

~ s.pdf
#### T. D. McCURLEY, Appellant, v. AUTO-OWNERS INS. CO. et al., Appellees.

No. GG-244.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 15, 1978.

Calvin W. Wilson, Pensacola, for appellant.

W. Christopher Hart of Clark, Parting-ton, Hart & Hart, Pensacola, for appellees.

SMITH, Judge.

McCurley appeals from an adverse summary judgment dismissing his action against the owner, driver, and insurer of a vehicle which collided with McCurley’s vehicle. McCurley’s complaint sought to set aside, as having been obtained by fraud, a *69complete release signed by McCurley and delivered to the insurer’s agent in' exchange for $2,000. The release recites that the payment was in full settlement of all claims, but McCurley testified the agent told him the payment and release were for his automobile damage alone, not for McCurley’s bodily injury. McCurley did not read the release and, if his testimony is taken as true, he apparently overlooked the recitation on the face of the draft that $700 of the payment was for “P. D.” and $1,300 was for “B. I.”

In reviewing the summary judgment dismissing McCurley’s claim, we must credit his testimony from which a jury could find the insurance agent falsely and fraudulently misrepresented the contents of the release. The record does not show sufficiently for a summary judgment that McCurley unjustifiably relied on the asserted misrepresentations or that McCurley was negligent in failing to ascertain the true facts. *Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson,*93 Fla. 30, 111 So. 525 (1927); *Buchanan v. Clinton,*293 So.2d 120 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); *Bryant v. Small,*236 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970). The movants did not demonstrate the absence of any material issue of fact.

REVERSED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.