alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Francis BRYANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-481.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 18, 1970.

Francis Bryant, in pro. per.

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

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order appealed is accordingly affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J. and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
## NUMBER 13 -22-00335-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

BRANDI SHARDEI S TR AUGHTER

, Appellant,

v.

TOM NEMES

, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

of Johnson C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Longoria, Hinojosa, and Silva Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant Brandi Shardei Straughter filed a pro se notice of appeal regarding a

judgment rendered against her in cause number CC

- C20220227 in the County Court at

Law No. 2 of Johnson County, Texas. 1 On July 27, 2022, the Clerk of this Court advised

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Tenth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001

.2 appellant t hat her notice of appeal failed to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 9.1(b ) ; 9.5(d), (e); 25.1(d)(2), (4); and 25.1(e) , and requested correction of

these defects within thirty days. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.1(b); id. R. 9.5(d), (e); id. R.

25.1(d)(2), (4 ); id. R. 25.1(e)

. 2 Appellant did not correct the defects. On September 1,

2022, the Clerk again notified appellant that her notice of appeal was defective, requested

correction of the defects within ten days, and advised appellant that the appeal would be

dismissed if the defects were not corrected. See id. R. 42.3 (b), (c). To date, appellant

has not corrected the defective notice of appeal and has not otherwise responded to the

Clerk’s directives.

The Court, having exam ined and fully considered the notice of appeal and the

foregoing events, is of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed. This Court has

the authority to dismiss an appeal because the appellant has failed to comply with a

requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a

response or other action within a specified time. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 4 2.3(c); Smith v. DC

Civil Constr., LLC , 521 S.W.3d 75, 76 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2017, no pet.). Here,

2 The Clerk of the Court sent notices to appellant by email and by regular mail at the address that appellant provided. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.1(b). The notices sent by regular mail were returned to the Court denominated as “return to sender,” “not deliverable as addressed,” and “u nable to forward.” The Clerk’s office contacted appellant to determine whether she had received the email notifications and to obtain appellant’s new address . Appellant advised that she had received the email notifications; however, she no longer wished to pursue the appeal.3 appellant has not corrected the defective notice of appeal or otherwise responded to the

Clerk’s directives. Accordingly, w e dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 (b), (c)

.

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the 6th day of October, 2022.
Order entered March 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01154-CR

DANIEL ROY PENA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-59397-J

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 18, 2019 second motion for extension of time to 

file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before 

April 17, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by April 17, 2019, this appeal may be abated for 

the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
#### John MARTIN, Petitioner, v. Dave STARR, as Sheriff of Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-732.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 8, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### Peter J. WELSH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-587.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 16, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
EASTERN FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

Application 

No. Project/Facility Name Project Type Federal Land Accessed Applicant County

Fiscal 

Year*

NY-05 Dorchester Park Gateway

Bridge Rehabilitation, 

Roadway 

Reconstruction, Sidewalk 

Installation 

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers - Lake Whitney

Broome County 

Department of 

Parks

Broome

2017-

2018

NY-06 NY Route 63 Improvements Roadway Reconstruction 

& Culvert Replacements

Fish and Wildlife Service - 

Iroquois National Wildlife 

Refuge

NY Department 

of Transportation

Genesee/

Orleans

2017-

2018

The Programming Decisions Committee (PDC) responsible for the New York Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) has selected its multiyear 

Program of Projects. The projects identified for programming for the New York FLAP are listed below in no particular order and include:

New York Program of Projects for Federal Fiscal Years 2017-2020

* Fiscal Year Programmed/Project Schedule is subject to change

The next step in the process will be to develop project agreements between Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division and the State/Local Agency 

partners. The amount of funds allocated will depend on finalizing these project agreements. The New York PDC does not have a firm date for the 

next Call for Projects under the Access Program. Please watch our website for updates in your state. https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/flap/

If you have any questions regarding the Call for Projects, please contact Mr. Lewis Grimm, Planning Team Leader, at 703-404-6289 or 

Lewis.Grimm@dot.gov. For questions regarding project agreements and funding, please contact Ms. Jacinda Russell, Access Program Manager, at 

571-434-1543 or Jacinda.Russell@dot.gov.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.A


                            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 on Form 10-Q for the period
ending June 30, 2003, of El Paso CGP Company (the "Company") as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
L. Kuehn, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, certify (i)
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 (ii) that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ronald L. Kuehn, Jr.
                                           Chairman of the Board and
                                           Chief Executive Officer
                                           (Principal Executive Officer)

                                           August 14, 2003



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to El Paso CGP Company and will be retained by El Paso CGP Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Solomon MUSTOPHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-448.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ross L. RUSSO, Appellant, v. Darlene RUSSO, Appellee.

No. 73-1255.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 29, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 13.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.




I, Carlos Alberto López Galán, Chief Financial Officer of Banco Santander (Brasil), S.A., certify that, to the best of my knowledge:




1.
the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and




2.
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Banco Santander (Brasil), S.A.




Date:  April 30, 2014




By:
/s/ Carlos Alberto López GalánName:
Carlos Alberto López GalánTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
#### Herman B. MEISELMAN, Ira S. Meiselman and L. A. Poston, Appellants, v. Mason H. McKNIGHT, Jr., Appellee.

No. L-438.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Sept. 18, 1969.

Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Thomas S. Biggs, Jr., Jacksonville, and Wayman & Werber, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County, denying appellants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because of failure of proper service of process.

The appellants were all officers and/or stockholders of M & S Shopping Centers, Inc. of Florida, a corporation. Suit was instituted against said corporation and the appellants herein, individually. Service of process was made upon a Mr. C. H. Deavers, resident agent for M & S Shopping Centers, Inc. of Florida, allegedly also as resident agent for the appellants.

Appellants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that personal service on the individual defendants could not be had by service upon the corporation’s resident agent, was denied. Hence this appeal.

\¥e have examined the Florida Statutes pertaining to service of process on nonresident individuals, and particularly section 48.071 and section 48.181 and chapter 49, and after examining the record before us, we must conclude that the statutes have not been complied with in effecting service *438upon the appellants, and their motion to dismiss as to them should have been granted.

That portion of the order appealed from is hereby reversed and said cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith.

JOHNSON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50050 Su m m ar yC al endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f
- A pp el l ee v. C R E S E N C IO R IC O , D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 1 : 9 7 - CR- 1 6 4 - ALL B ef ore B E N AV ID E S , P R A D O , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * C resenci o R i co app eal s t h e di st ri ct co u rt’ s or der di sm i ssi n g h i s pro s e m o t i o n t o r e i ns t at e hi s a ppe alo f hi s 2 00 5 c o nvi c t i o n f o rc o ns pi r ac y t o po s s e ss w i t h i nt e ntt o di s t r ibut e m ar ij uana . Couns e l ap po i nt e d t o r e pr e s e nt Ri c o i n t he i ns t anta ppe alha s m o ve d f o r l e av e t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

pur s uant t o A n d ers v. Ca lif

o rn ia , 3 86 U . S. 7 38 ( 19 67 ) , c o nt e ndi ng t hatt he r e a r e no n on f rivol ou s i ssues w i t h res pect t o R i co’ s c on vi ct i on an d sen t en ce. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 5, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-50050 Document: 00511043246 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/05/2010N o. 09- 50050

2 A s r ec ogni ze d by t he di st r i c tc our t , R i c o’ s m ot i on to r ei nst at e hi s appeal w a s an u n a u th orized m oti on tha t t h e d i str ic t cou rt l a ck ed j u ri sd i cti on to e n te r ta in . S eeUn itedS ta tes v. Ea rly , 27 F . 3d 14 0, 1 42 ( 5th C i r. 199 4) . “ T h u s, [R i co] h a s a p p ea l ed from the de n i a lof a m ea n i n gless, u n a u th orized m oti on . ” I d. Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , t he j udg m e nto f t he di s t r i c tc o ur ti s AFF I RM ED a nd coun sel ’ s m ot i on t o w i t h draw is G R A N T E D . A l lot h er outs t an di n g m ot i on s are DE NI ED . Case: 09-50050 Document: 00511043246 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/05/2010
#### Kenneth B. SMITH, Elizabeth Smith, Doris Cooper Morgan and Kenneth B. Smith, Jr., Petitioners, v. H. A. (Al) MOORE and M. S. Linton, as Sheriff of Taylor County, Florida, Respondents.

No. 50248.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 10, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1977.

Donald W. Weidner, of Harris, Liles, McConnaughhay & Weidner, Tallahassee, for petitioners.

Julius F. Parker, Jr., of Madigan, Parker, Gatlin, Truett & Swedmark, Tallahassee, for respondents.

ADKINS, Justice.

Writ of certiorari was granted in this cause to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District *(Smith v. Moore,*336 So.2d 145), on the ground that the decision under review affects a class of constitutional officers, specifically the sheriffs. We have jurisdiction. Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.

We approve and adopt the opinion and decision of the District Court of Appeal as the opinion and decision of this Court.

The writ of certiorari is discharged.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND and SUNDBERG, JJ., concur.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Domain Extremes Inc. (the “Company”) for
the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Stephen Tang, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on 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 and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  September
11, 2012








/s/ Stephen Tang


Stephen Tang


Treasurer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Domain Extremes, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2872]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.

TIME AND DATE: Tuesday, February 11, 1997, 10:00 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be considered

Petroleum Distillates

    The staff will brief the Commission on a staff recommendation that 
the Commission publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and 
begin a rulemaking proceeding to require child-resistant packaging of 
consumer products that contain petroleum distillates.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.

CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: January 31, 1997.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-2872 Filed 1-31-97; 2:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60893]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-154-008]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 3, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
November 1, 1997:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 802
Second Revised Sheet No. 2401

    Koch states that this filing is being submitted in compliance with 
OPR Letter Order dated October 22, 1997. Koch revised its tariff to 
reflect GISB November 1, 1997, Standards, as directed by the 
Commission.
    Koch also states that it has served copies of this filing upon each 
person designated on the official service list as compiled by the 
Secretary in this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided by Section 154.210 of the Commission's rules and regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-29811 Filed 11-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Josefa NUNEZ, Appellant, v. Rafael ENRIQUEZ et al., Appellees.

No. 73-435.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 1974.

Howard L. Garrett of Garrett & Garrett and Oscar Cuesta, Tampa, for appellant.

James W. Clark of Giglio & Grant, Tampa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Blatch v. Wesley, Fla.App.1970, 238 So.2d 308, and cases cited therein.

McNULTY, A. C. J., and BOARDMAN, J., and McGREGOR, ROBERT B., Associate Judge, concur.
#### The STATE of Florida, For the Use and Benefit of DADE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Joseph HAHN and Resolute Insurance Company, a Rhode Island Corporation, Appellees.

No. 71-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 20, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7827

ROBERT LEE BROCK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN, Indian Creek Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-95-1076-R)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 28, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Brock v. Warden, No. CA-95-1076-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 10, 1995). 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.

DISMISSED
#### Oscar Norman TODD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 17, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSRS

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-4257 |
|------------------------------------|----------|

 

DWS Variable Series I

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 12/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 06/30/09 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

 

----