alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Appellate case name: In the Interest of T. L. B. , A. J. and L. J. v. Department of Family and 

Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01-20-00655-CV

Trial court case number: 2019-02943J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Upon reviewing the record, the Court notifies the parties that this appeal may be dismissed 

for want of jurisdiction because the record does not contain either a final judgment or an appealable 

interlocutory order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001). Appellant L.W.’s pending motion for an extension of time to file her brief confirms 

that “no order, interlocutory or otherwise, has been entered to this day” and “this appeal was filed 

prematurely, before entry of the final order.”

Accordingly, the Court may dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless you file a 

written response to this notice providing a detailed explanation, citing relevant portions of the 

record, statutes, rules, and case law, showing that this Court has jurisdiction over the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). Any response must be filed within 7 days of the date of this 

notice. 

Briefing deadlines are ordered stayed pending the determination of our jurisdiction over 

the appeal. Accordingly, appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her brief is dismissed 

as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Sarah B. Landau_____

 Acting individually 

Date: __December 3, 2020_____
IN TM SUPREME COURT OFTHE STATE O.0 NEVADA

CHRISTINE JERMYN, Appellant, vs. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAI, I3ORROWER 4 LLC, Respondent. No. 84976
FiSd Frft_ Y. 6.7.0
. AUG 1 6 21122
ELri_ABVII-3A. BROWN C,LERK ûrS'.. 7

;1MECOURT DEPUTY CLERK OR.DER DISMISSINGAPPEAL This appeal. was docketed on July 7, 2022, without payment of the requisite filing fee. See N.RAP 3(0. The filing fee was due when the notice ofappeal was filed. Accordingly, onjuly 7, 2022, this court issued a notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days. The notice advised that failure to comply would result in the dismissal ofthis appeal. On August 8, 2022, the notice was returned to this court as undeliverable and unable to be forwarded. To date, appellant has not paid the required filing fee. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2).

It is so ORDERE.D.
C1.4.ERE OFTHE SUPREME COURT ELIZABETH A.BROWN BY:

cc: Hon.Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge Christinejermyn Law Offices ofScott M.. Clark, P.C. Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA CLERK'S ORDER 047 L('
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29859]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[FL-70-9738b; FRL-5920-4]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans For Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants: Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the Section 111(d)/129 State Plan 
submitted by Florida on November 18, 1996. The State Plan was submitted 
by Florida to satisfy certain Federal Clean Air Act requirements. In 
the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the 
State's Plan submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and 
anticipates that it will not receive any significant, material, and 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in 
the direct final rule and incorporated by reference herein. If no 
significant, material, and adverse comments are received in response to 
this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final 
rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by 
December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Joey LeVasseur at 
the EPA Regional Office listed below. Copies of the documents relevant 
to this proposed rule are available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the following locations. The interested persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office at least 24 hours before the day of the visit.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Air and Radiation Technology 
Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Air Resources 
Management Division, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone 
Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Davis at 404/562-9127 or Joey 
LeVasseur at 404/562-9035.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct 
Final action which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal 
Register and incorporated by reference herein.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-29859 Filed 11-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### Merrill SCHWARTZ, Appellant, v. John A. HUGHEY et al., Appellees.

No. 73-176.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1974.

Rehearings Denied April 16, 19, 1974.

Rober Orseck of Podhurst Orseck & Parks, Miami, and Terrell Griffin of Law Offices of Russell Troutman, Winter Park, for_ appellant.

Raymond Ehrlich and Marion R. Shepard of Mathews Osborne Ehrlich McNatt Gobelman & Cobb, Jacksonville, and Howell Kirby Montgomery D’Aiuto Dean & Hallowes, Orlando, for appellee-Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.

MAGER, Judge.

This appeal involves the interpretation of Section 627.736(3) (a) and Section 627.-736(3) (b), Florida Statutes, F.S.A. and the applicability of the equitable distribution doctrine as it relates to reimbursement rights of the insurer for personal injury protection benefits paid to an insured under the no-fault insurance law. The precise question was answered in Reyes v. Banks, 292 So.2d 39, Fourth District Court of Appeal, opinion filed February 22, 1974, which is determinative of the instant appeal.

In *Reyes,*this court rejected the trial court’s interpretation that Section 627.-736(3) (a) foreclosed equitable distribution where a plaintiff insured under a no-fault policy settled the tort claim for an amount, exclusive of attorney’s fees and costs, in excess of the dollar amount of the no-fault benefits paid. This court also rejected the trial court’s determination that Section 627.736(3) (b) provided for equitable distribution only where the net recovery was less than the no-fault benefits paid. This court observed, in part:

> “There being a positive repugnancy between paragraphs (a) and (b), we determine that the latter paragraph (b) should govern in all cases to which it is applicable, and paragraph (b) revises the subject matter of the former paragraph (a). City of St. Petersburg v. Pinellas County Power Co., 87 Fla. 315, 100 So. 509, 510 (1924). Thus the insurer’s rights of reimbursement shall be based upon equitable distribution in accordance with paragraph (b).”

Based upon the reasoning and rationale of Reyes v. Banks, supra, the final judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in accordance therewith.

Reversed and remanded.

WALDEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0001
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0002
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0003
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0004
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0005
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0006
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0007
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0008
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0009
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0010
File 5 Ex 5 - Statutory Limitations Satisfied 0011
#### Margaret GREEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-784.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On this appeal by the defendant below from a judgment of conviction of grand larceny, for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for three years, the sole contention presented is that the court erred in denying a motion of defendant’s counsel for a continuance. The granting or denial of a motion for continuance, when properly presented, is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court. Aeree v. State, 153 Fla. 561, 15 So.2d 262; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1969, 218 So.2d 180; Berriel v. State, Fla.App.1970, 233 So.2d 163; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 29. On Consideration of that contention in the light of the record and briefs, we conclude that in the circumstances disclosed the challenged ruling denying the motion for continuance did not represent an abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.
October 15/2015 TO: Chhristopher A. Pine Fourteenth Court of Appeals 301 Fannin St., Room 245 Houston, Texas-77002-2062
TO: Civil Rule art. 4.2 and 4.5: Mr.C.A.Pine: 

## IM'IO

- \5~-OJ 

# "filedin " 14thCOURTOFAPPEALS 

# OCT20201j CHRlbiOHHEriA.PHir CLERK 

# ^Bdn My rule book was printed in 2003 and I need to know if this rule still applies today in Civil cases where a court's order order that was issued to a plaintiff on July 28,2014, 

### but the plaintiff did not receive anynotice until October 8, 2014but the plaintiff October 8, 2015 and received by the dated of the post marke on the envelope October 5, 2015. That was 

### on the envelope and was given toRisley on theOctober 8,2015 by the T.E.C.J.-IDmail room clerk on the 9th , 2015. This rule states that the time limit begin's on the date 

### he receives actuall knowledge of that court's order of dismissal. Tex. R. C iv. Proc. art. 4.2 and 4.5. I need to know if these two rules art still true. 

### thankyou for your help in this matter.

CC/ 2400 Wallace Pack Road Navasota,Texas-77868-4567
#### Robert O. DELVIN, Jr., and Florence F. Delvin, Petitioners, v. FLORIDA PALM-AIRE CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and Broward County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Respondents.

No. 39389.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 22, 1970.

John W. Stanford, of Anderson & Stanford, Fort Lauderdale and James R. Eddy, Pompano Beach, for petitioners.

Arthur J. Franza, Hollywood, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Subsequent to issuing a writ of certiorari in this cause,1 respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition and to quash the writ, and petitioners filed a dual motion to dismiss themselves as parties and allow other interested parties to intervene in place of the t)wo original petitioners. On April 7, 1970, we denied the motion for leave to intervene and to dismiss the original petitioners as parties.

It now appearing that petitioner Robert O. Delvin, Jr., is deceased, that petitioner Florence F. Delvin and the successors in interest to the property of Robert O. Del-vin, Jr., have conveyed all interests in the real property affected by this suit, thereby divesting themselves of any justiciable interest in this litigation, and that the issue as to these parties has become moot, it is hereby, Ordered

*358That the motion to quash the writ and to dismiss the petition filed by the respondent be and the same is hereby granted and that the writ of certiorari heretofore issued in this cause be quashed and the petition dismissed.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

1

. The district court decision for review is reported as Florida Palm-Aire Corp. v. Delvin, 230 So.2d 26 (4th Dist.Ct.App. Fla.1969).
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNIT E D ST AT E S CO URT O F APPE AL S FO R T H E NINT H CIRCUIT UNIT E D ST A T E S O F AM E RICA, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. SH ANE ST E V E N W H IT E , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 15-30092

D.C . No. 2:03-c r-00007-DW M -1 M E M O RANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na D ona ld W . M olloy , Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 1, 2016 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : K O Z INSKI and O ’SCANNL AIN , C irc uit Judge s, a n d O RRICK , ** Distric t Judge . 1. White ’ s five -m onth te rm of hom e c onfine m e nt doe s not c ount a s

“ im prisonm e n t ” for purpose s of c a lc ulat ing his post-revoc ation supe rvise d re le a se 

# FIL ED MAR 08 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The Honora

b le W illia m Horsle y Orric k III, Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.pa ge 2

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 3583(h) (2002). Se c tion 3583(h) re quire s c ourts to c re dit only the a ggre gate te rm s of im prisonm e nt pre v iously

“ im pose d upon re v oc ation” of a de fe nda n t’ s supe rvise d re l e a se . B e c a use the distric t c ourt orde re d hom e c onfine m e nt upon a

m odific a tion of supe rvise d re le a se — not a re voc at ion—

the five -m onth pe riod fa lls outside the sc ope of § 3583(h), no matte r whe the r hom e c onfine m e nt a

m o unts to im

prisonm e nt. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt wa s c orre c t in not subtra c ting thehom e -c onfine m e nt pe riod from the m a xim

um te rm of supe rvise d re le a se whe n c a lc ulating the le ngth of W hite ’ s post-re voc ation supe rvise d re le a se te rm . 2. The distric t c ourt did not err in fa iling to c onside r a s a n a dditiona l te rm

of im prisonm e nt the two m onths W hite spe n t in de te ntion pe nding se nte n c ing on his re voc ation of supe rvise d re l e a se . The B ure a u of Prisons will cre dit the two m onths a s pa rt of White ’ s tota l te n-m onth se nte n c e of im prisonm e nt upon re voc ation. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 3585; Unite d State s v. W ilson, 503 U.S. 329, 333 (1992) (holding tha t the A ttorne y

Ge ne ra l, a

nd not thedistric t c ourt, ha s the a uthority to c a lc ulate and award ja i l-tim e c re dit); se e a lso Unite d State s Se nte nc ing Guide line s M anua l § 7B 1.3 App. Note3 (2015) (e xpla ining tha t the B ure a

u of Prisons c re dits de te ntion towa rd a te rm of im prisonm e nt im

pose d upon re v oc ation).pa ge 3

AFFIRM E D.
smsi-ex104_9.htm



Exhibit 10.4

AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE 

(ANDREW ARNO)

 

This AMENDMENT TO SECURED PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Amendment”) is made as of January 30, 2018, by and between Smith Micro Software, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and ANDREW ARNO (“Holder”), and amends that certain Secured Promissory Note, dated August 24, 2017, issued by the Company to Holder in the original principal amount of $75,000, but with a current outstanding principal amount of $25,000 (the “Note”).  Capitalized terms that are not otherwise defined in this Amendment have the meanings given to such terms in the Note. 

 

RECITALS

 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the Maturity Date of the Note as set forth herein. 

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

Section 1.  Amendment to Note.  Effective as of the date hereof, the Maturity Date of the Note is hereby extended to July 25, 2018. 

 

Section 2.  Effect of Amendment.  Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, no other changes or modifications to the Note are intended or implied by this Amendment.  To the extent of any conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Note, the terms of this Amendment shall control.  

 

Section 3.  Miscellaneous.  This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and any of the parties to this Amendment may execute this Amendment by signing any such counterpart.  Facsimile and electronically copied signatures on this Amendment shall be deemed the equivalent of original signatures.  This Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and permitted assigns.  

 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank]

 



Exhibit 10.4

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed or caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their respective authorized representatives as of the date first written above.

 

COMPANY: 

SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC.

 

By: /s/ Timothy C. Huffmyer

Name: Timothy C. Huffmyer

Title: Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

HOLDER:

 

 

/s/ Andrew Arno

Andrew Arno
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2018

No. 04-18-00029-CV

AUTOBUSES ZAVALA PLUS,

Appellant

v.

Maria Torres MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CI02517

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On February 27, 2018, the clerk of this court notified the court reporter, Luis Duran, Jr., 

by letter that he is the court reporter responsible for timely filing the reporter’s record in this 

appeal and that the reporter’s record is late. The clerk explained that if the reporter’s record has 

not been filed because (1) the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the 

reporter’s fee and (2) the appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, the court 

reporter must file a notification of late record stating such fact within ten days. Otherwise, the 

court reporter must file the reporter’s record within thirty days. 

The court reporter did not timely file a notification of late record, nor has he filed the 

reporter’s record. We, therefore, ORDER Luis Duran, Jr. to file the reporter’s record no later 

than April 16, 2018. If the reporter’s record is not received by such date, an order may be issued 

directing Luis Duran, Jr. to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for 

failing to file the record.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
EnzymeBioSystems, a Nevada corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this
certificate in connection with the Form 10-K of the Company for the year
ended June 30, 2010 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-K").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the amended Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the amended Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


   /s/ Ashot Martirosyan
----------------------------------
       Ashot Martirosyan
Its:   Principal Executive Officer

Dated:  October 13, 2010
        ----------------


<PAGE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 228 (Wednesday, November 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63120-63124]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30993]



[[Page 63120]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of Secretary
[Transmittal No. 98-08]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 98-08, with attached transmittal, policy 
justification, Section 620C(d) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, 
and sensitivity of technology pages.

    Dated: November 20, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternative OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of 
Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000-04-M

[[Page 63121]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.032



[[Page 63122]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.033



[[Page 63123]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.034



[[Page 63124]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26NO97.035



[FR Doc. 97-30993 Filed 11-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-C
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
                                  One Beacon Street
                                  Boston, MA 02108

                                  April 3, 2009



Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20549



RE:      Daily Assets Fund Institutional (the "Fund"), a series of DWS
         Institutional Funds (the "Trust") (Reg. Nos. 33-34079, 811-06071)

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the Trust
hereby certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information that would have been filed on behalf of the Fund pursuant to Rule
497(c) upon the effectiveness of Post-Effective Amendment No. 77 to the Trust's
Registration Statement on form N-1A (the "Amendment"), do not differ from that
contained in the Amendment, which is the most recent Registration Statement and
was filed electronically on April 1, 2009.


Any comments or questions on this filing should be directed to the undersigned
at (617) 295-3986.

                                  Very truly yours,


                                  /s/Scott D. Hogan

                                  Scott D. Hogan
                                  Vice President
                                  Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.

cc:      Adam Schlichtmann, Esq., Ropes & Gray
Exhibit 10(b)35
Charles D. McCrary
President and
Chief Executive Officer                                [Alabama Power Logo]

600 North 18th Street
Post Office Box 2641
Birmingham, Alabama  35291-0001







August 22, 2002



Mr. William B. Hutchins, III
Executive Vice President

Dear Bruce:

This letter will serve as confirmation of our discussions that began months ago
and continue until this day. As an inducement for you to stay at Alabama Power
Company as CFO until at least April of 2004, I commit to provide to you the
Career Transition Package as defined August 19, 2002.

Sincerely,