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

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2015

No. 04-15-00341-CV

BEXAR COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellant

v.

Carmella GUERRERO,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-08758

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due on July 6, 2015. The court reporter responsible for 

preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal has filed a notification of late reporter’s record 

stating that the record was not timely filed because appellant has failed to request and designate 

the record and has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the court reporter’s fee for 

preparing the record.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

(10) days from the date of this order that: (1) a written request has been made for preparation of 

the reporter’s record pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(1); and (2) either (i) the court reporter’s 

fees have been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the court reporter’s fees, or (ii) 

appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the court reporter’s fees.

If appellant fails to respond to this order within the time provided, the appellant’s brief 

will be due within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider 

those issues or points raised in the appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a 

decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are abated pending a 

response to this order.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. James Eugene MATNEY and Leo Dean Welsh, Appellees.

No. M-75.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 9, 1970.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1970.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Joseph A. St. Ana, Jacksonville, for ap-pellees.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida has appealed a final judgment dismissing the information filed against appellees herein and discharging them from custody because of the State’s failure or refusal to divulge the name of its confidential informant whose information was used in part as a basis for procuring a search warrant. The judgment is reversed upon the authority of the decision of this court in the companion case of State of Florida v. James Eugene Matney, Leo Schuty a/k/a Leo Dean Welsh, and Susan Lind Hyers a/k/a Susan F. Matney, Case No. M-82, opinion filed this date, 236 So.2d 166.

JOHNSON, C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

ANDREW ADAM GOMEZ, AKA Andrew 

A. Gomez, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 20-10033 

D.C. No. 

1:17-cr-00271-LJO-SKO-2 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 10, 2021

San Francisco, California

Before: WARDLAW and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and CAIN,** District Judge.

Andrew Adam Gomez appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence 

following his conditional guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable James David Cain, Jr., United States District Judge for 

the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 1 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

The district court properly concluded that Officer Kensey’s inquiries did not 

prolong the traffic stop beyond what was reasonably necessary to perform the 

permissible tasks outlined in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 355 (2015). 

Kensey stopped Gomez for a legitimate speeding violation. Upon approaching 

Gomez’s vehicle, Kensey was overwhelmed by the strong odor of air freshener. 

Kensey noticed two air fresheners, one hanging from each of the front headrests, as 

well as numerous fast-food wrappers and containers littered throughout the car. 

When Kensey requested Gomez’s license, Gomez explained that he only had a 

permit, but he did not have it with him. Under these circumstances, the district 

court properly concluded that Kensey was justified in continuing to ask questions

because he was still in the process of completing “tasks tied to the traffic 

infraction,” which include inquiries that “ensur[e] that vehicles on the road are 

operated safely and responsibly.” Id. Cf. United States v. Evans, 786 F.3d 779,

786 (9th Cir. 2015) (concluding that the officer impermissibly extended the stop by 

running ex-felon registration check unrelated to traffic safety and unsupported by 

separate reasonable suspicion); United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706, 715 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (“Non-routine record checks and dog sniffs are paradigm examples of 

‘unrelated investigations’ that may not be performed if they prolong a roadside 

detention absent independent reasonable suspicion.”).
3 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,181
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    996,626
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,005,807
<PP&E>                                       1,640,193
<DEPRECIATION>                               (368,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,453,373
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,403,834
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,892
<OTHER-SE>                                    (52,353)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,453,373
<SALES>                                      2,545,514
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,545,514
<CGS>                                        1,057,160
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,057,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,918,950
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,541
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,464,137)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,464,137)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,464,137)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.22)
        

</TABLE>
#### Clyde JONES, Petitioner, v. CONCRETE PAVERS, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 40544.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 20 22

- 00 62

_____________________________ G ARY W. M C M ICHAEL , L ISA V. M C M ICHAEL a nd T HIRD

- P ARTY D EFENDANT , T HE T URN K EY G ROUP , I NC

. , Appellant s ,

v.

C HARTERBANK , T HOMAS D. Z ACHOS , e t a l.
, Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. November 7, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , R OBERTS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________

Phillip A. Pugh and Haley Hadden of Litvak Beasley Wilson & Ball, LLP, Pensacola
, for Appellant s

. Natasha Z. Revell of Zalkin Revell, PLLC, Santa Rosa Beach, for Appellees Thomas Zachos and Kalliope Zachos

.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

IN RE: )

)

CENTER FOR ADVANCED )

MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGY, )

a/k/a CAMTECH, )

)

Debtor )

)

CENTER FOR ADVANCED )

MANUFACTURING & TECHNOLOGY, )

a/k/a CAMTECH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 05-296 Erie

)

ERIE COUNTY TECHNICAL SCHOOL, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2005, upon consideration of the Motion to

Dismiss Adversary Proceeding [Doc. No. 10] filed by the Plaintiff/Debtor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the above-captioned Adversary Proceeding against

Defendant Erie County Technical School is DISMISSED. 

The clerk is directed to mark the case closed. 

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: All parties of record. 

Case 1:05-cv-00296-SJM Document 11 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 TranSwitch Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter J. Tallian,
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 result of operations of
          the Company.

                                                       /s/ Peter J. Tallian
                                                      --------------------
                                                      Peter J. Tallian
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      March 17, 2003
EXHIBIT 32





INSWEB CORPORATION





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 InsWeb Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, hereby 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) 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to InsWeb Corporation, and will be retained by InsWeb Corporation and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.








/s/ HUSSEIN A. ENANHussein A. EnanChairman and Chief Executive OfficerDated: November 10, 2010/s/ KIRAN RASARETNAMKiran RasaretnamChief Financial OfficerDated : November 10, 2010
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 191 (Thursday, October 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51652]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26078]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-766-000]

Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

September 26, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 22, 1997, Williams Natural Gas 
Company (WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket 
No. CP97-766-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.212, and 
157.216, of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.212, 157.216) for authorization to upgrade the United 
Cities Gas Company Olathe Naval Base meter setting and appurtenant 
facilities located in Johnson County, Kansas under WNG's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-479-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    WNG states that the total projected volume of delivery through the 
new facilities is estimated to be 407,400 Dth annually with a peak day 
volume of 2,500 Dth. The total project cost is estimated to be $162,282 
which will be offset by the execution of a new incremental one year 
firm transportation agreement. WNG states that this change is not 
prohibited by an existing tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to 
accomplish the deliveries specified without detriment or disadvantage 
to its other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26078 Filed 10-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  SECTION 1350
                                 CERTIFICATION

      I, Robert Fallah, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
Key Command International Corp., hereby 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2003 (the "Quarterly Report") which this statement accompanies fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Key
Command International Corp.


Date:  March 16, 2005                         BY:    /s/ Robert Fallah
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Robert Fallah
                                                     Chief Executive Officer and
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


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 Key Command International Corp.
and will be retained by Key Command International Corp. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 3.3

                                                     ENDORSED - FILED
                                         in the office of the Secretary of State
                                                of the State of California

                                                        JUN 19 2003
                                                       KEVIN SHELLEY
                                                    Secretary of State

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF

                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION

                                       OF

                        CET ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

The undersigned certify that:

         1.       They are the President and the Chief Financial
                  Officer/Assistant Secretary, respectively, of CET
                  Environmental Services, Inc., a California corporation (the
                  "Corporation").

         2.       Article I of the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation
                  is amended to read as follows:

                        The name of this Corporation is CET SERVICES, INC.

         3.       The foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has
                  been duly approved by the Board of Directors.

         4.       The foregoing amendment of the Articles of Incorporation has
                  been duly approved by the required vote of Shareholders in
                  accordance with Section 902 of the California Corporations
                  Code. The Corporation has only one (1) class of shares. Each
                  outstanding share is entitled to one (1) vote. The total
                  number of shares entitled to vote with respect to the
                  amendment was five million seven hundred fifty-seven thousand
                  seven hundred ninety-two (5,757,792). The number of shares
                  voting in favor of the amendment was five million five hundred
                  eighty thousand eight hundred thirty-eight (5,580,838); the
                  number of shares voting against the amendment was thirty-seven
                  thousand one hundred fifty (37,150); and the number of shares
                  abstaining was sixteen thousand five hundred (16,500). Thus,
                  the number of shares voting in favor of the amendment exceeded
                  the vote required, insofar as the percentage vote required was
                  more than fifty percent (50%).

         We further declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
of California that the matters set forth in this Certificate are true and
correct of our own knowledge.

 Dated: June 16, 2003            /s/ Steven H. Davis, President
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Steven H. Davis, President

Dated: June 16, 2003             /s/ Dale W. Bleck
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Dale W. Bleck,
                                 Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary

[SEAL]
Case 1:04-cv-00197-MBC   Document 14   Filed 08/18/05   Page 1 of 5

Case 1:04-cv-00197-MBC   Document 14   Filed 08/18/05   Page 2 of 5

Case 1:04-cv-00197-MBC   Document 14   Filed 08/18/05   Page 3 of 5

Case 1:04-cv-00197-MBC   Document 14   Filed 08/18/05   Page 4 of 5

Case 1:04-cv-00197-MBC   Document 14   Filed 08/18/05   Page 5 of 5

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2014-03-11T01:59:48-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.32


                    SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

     THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SEVERANCE AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made
this 31st day of December, 1998, by and between ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, with its principal office located at 9800 Metric Blvd.,
Austin, Texas 78758 (the "Company") and J. D. WEBB, JR., an individual resident
at 1001 Oakwood Blvd., Round Rock, Texas 78681 (the "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company entered into a Severance Agreement
dated September 19, 1995, as amended (the "Agreement") which provided, inter
alia, for certain payments to be made in the event that certain events occurred
with respect to the Employee's employment relationship with the Company;

     WHEREAS, the Employee and the Company desire that there be certain changes
made with respect to the Agreement; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee want to memorialize in this Amendment
their agreements regarding such changes to the Agreement.

     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and other mutual promises
and covenants contained in this Amendment and for other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties, intending legally to be bound, agree as follows:

     1. The changes contemplated by the Amendment to Severance Agreement dated
March 18, 1997 shall not take effect as of March 25, 1999 and shall have no
further force and effect.

     2. Except as specifically changed by the Amendment, all other terms and
provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by
its duly authorized officer and the Employee has hereunto set its hand as of the
date and year first written above.

                                        ENCORE:

                                        ENCORE ORTHOPEDICS, INC.


                                        By:/s/ NICK CINDRICH
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Nick Cindrich, CEO


                                        EMPLOYEE:

                                        /s/ J. D. WEBB, JR.
                                        ---------------------------------------
                                        J. D. WEBB, JR.
#### Anthony John STABILE and Dade County, a body politic, Appellants, v. Solomon LAMB, Appellee.

No. 69-124.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 30, 1969.

West & Goldman, Miami, for appellants.

Ainslee R. Ferdie, Coral Gables, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

*348PER CURIAM.

The defendants in a rear-end collision case (the driver and his employer) appeal from a final judgment for the plaintiff. The trial judge entered a summary judgment as to liability. Trial was had only on the issue of damages.

Defendants contend on this appeal that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment as to liability because there was a genuine issue as to the driver’s negligence. They maintain that a jury could have found that a sudden stop by the plaintiff could have been a contributing cause of the collision. See Hott v. Funk, Fla.App. 1964, 165 So.2d 792; Bernstein v. Crossman, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 462.

The pleadings, answers to interrogatories, and depositions on file show there was no genuine 'issue of any material fact. We hold that the trial court correctly determined that the defendants were liable as a matter of law. The contention that the plaintiff’s lawful stop (caused by a change of traffic signal) was an unexpected stop is not supportable. See Sawyers v. Dawson, Fla.App.1968, 215 So.2d 764, and cases cited therein.

Affirmed.