alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued October 2 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 14
- 00139
- CV

——————————— DENA WILLIAMS , Appella nt

V. SCOTTWOOD APARTMENTS , Appell e e
On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1040284

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant , Dena Williams , has neither paid the required fees nor established indigence for purposes of appellate costs. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5, 20.1 ; see also T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § § 51.207, 51.208, 51.941(a), 101.041 ( West 201 3 ) , § 101.0411 (West Supp. 2014) ; Order Regarding Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil2

Cases in the Courts of Appeals , and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi

- D istrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13

- 91 27 (Tex. Au g. 16 , 20 13 ). Further, appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(b). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did not adequately respond. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 5 , 37.3(b), 42.3( b ) , (c)

. We dismiss the appeal for nonpayment of all required fees and for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle

.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT July Term 2014

RENEE HILL, as Personal Representative of the Estate of

SHARON BRONOWICZ, Deceased

, Appellant /Cross

- Appellee

,

v.

NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE COAST, INC. ,

Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

.

No. 4D 12

- 4309

[ November 5, 2014 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County ; Dwight L. Geiger , Judge; L.T. Case No. 562010CA03775

.
Guy Bennett Rubin and Gladys C. Laforge of Rubin & Rubin, Stua rt
, and Michael J. Korn of Korn & Zehmer, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant /cross appellee

.

Addi son J. Meyers of Mintzer, Sarow it z, Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, Miami

, and Kimberly L. Boldt of Boldt Law Firm, Boca Raton, for appellee /cross appellant

.

P ER C URIAM

.
On the plaintiff’s appeal, we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial. See

, e.g. , Intramed, Inc. v. Guider , 93 So. 3d 503, 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“ The closing argument shifted the focus of the case from compensating the plaint iff to punishing the defendant.

. . . The purpose of damages here was to compensate, n ot to make the defendant care, ‘ take responsibility ,’ or say it was sorry. Counsel’ s arguments improperly suggested that the defendant should be punished for contesting damages at trial and that its defense of the claim in court was improper. The closing argument was designed to inflame the emotions of the jury rather than prompt a logical analysis of the evidence in light of the applicable la

w.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

On the defendant’s cross

- appeal, we affirm without discussion the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for directed verdict. We also2

affirm without discussion the trial court’s orders a dmitting the evidence which became the subject of the defendant’s motion for directed verdict.

Because we affirm the trial court’s order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial, we do not review in this appeal the trial court’s orders granting the d efendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, denying the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, and granting the defendant’s moti o n for remittitur. All of those orders reflect the trial court’s determination that the non

- economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b) , Florida Statutes (2010), applied to all three counts which the plaintiff pled in this case. As the parties properly conceded at oral argument, o ur review of that determination will not become ripe unless the plaintiff, at the new trial, obtains a jury verdict which exceeds the non

- economic damages cap contained in section 394.9085(1)(b)

.
Affirmed in part and remanded for new trial

.

G ERBER , L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.10







Ref.: 4235.19161



March 12, 2014



Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.

2300, 530 Eighth Avenue SW

Calgary, AB T2P 3S8





Consent
of Independent Petroleum Engineers



We refer to our report dated March 4, 2014
and effective as of December 31, 2013, evaluating the crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids reserves and the net present
value of future net revenue attributable to certain of the oil and natural gas assets of Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. ("Bellatrix")
effective as at December 31, 2013 (the "Report").



We hereby consent to the use and reference
to our name and the Report, and the information derived from the Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: Bellatrix's
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2013, filed or to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.





| |                                    
| | -----------------------------------
| | Sincerely,                         
| |                                    
| | SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED         
| |                                    
| | Original Signed by Geoff Beatson   
| |                                    
| | Geoff Beatson, P.Eng., C.A.M.      
| | Sr. Engineering Advisor and Partner



Enclosure(s)

GWB:ssr

P:\Bellatrix 19161 YE 2013\1Project Management\Public Reporting
& Audits\AIF & Reserves\GWB 03 12 2014.docx
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12


                             COOPER INDUSTRIES, INC.
               COMPUTATION OF RATIOS OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                          (Dollar Amounts in Thousands)
                                   (Unaudited)

<Table>
<Caption>

                                         Six Months Ended
                                              June 30,                             Year Ended December 31,
                                       ----------------------    ------------------------------------------------------------

                                         2001         2000         2000         1999        1998          1997         1996
                                       ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------    ---------

<S>                                    <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>          <C>
Interest Expense                       $  47,500    $  44,900    $ 100,300    $  55,200    $ 101,900   $  90,400    $ 142,100

Capitalized Interest                         871        2,075        3,946           --           --          --           --

Estimated Interest Portion of
    Rent Expense                           8,561        7,953       15,614       13,948       12,352      10,864       10,035
                                       ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------

Fixed Charges                          $  56,932    $  54,928    $ 119,860    $  69,148    $ 114,252   $ 101,264    $ 152,135
                                       =========    =========    =========    =========    =========   =========    =========

Income From Continuing
    Operations Before Income Taxes     $ 191,400    $ 272,100    $ 549,900    $ 518,600     $523,600   $ 483,200    $ 470,700

Add:   Fixed Charges                      56,061       52,853      115,914       69,148      114,252     101,264      152,135

       Dividends From Less Than
       50% Owned Companies                    --           --           --           --           --          --          287

Less:  Equity in (Earnings) / Losses
       of Less Than 50% Owned
       Companies                          (1,592)      (2,561)      (3,367)      (1,069)         595        (320)      (1,609)
                                       ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------   ---------    ---------

Earnings Before Fixed Charges          $ 245,869    $ 322,392    $ 662,447    $ 586,679    $ 638,447   $ 584,144    $ 621,513
                                       =========    =========    =========    =========    =========   =========    =========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges           4.3x         5.9x         5.5x         8.5x        5.6x         5.8x         4.1x
</Table>




                                      -16-
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00204-CV 

RUSSELL P. MEDINA APPELLANT

V.

PFI FINANCIAL, LLC APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-00558-16

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

We have considered “Appellant Russell P. Medina’s Motion to Dismiss.” It 

is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and MCCOY, JJ. 

DELIVERED: September 4, 2014
256 La. 354

#### STATE of Louisiana v. George CAREY.

No. 50678.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: State of Louisiana applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ granted.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Rudolph F. Becker, Jr., Judge of the Criminal District Court for the Parish of Orleans, to transmit to the Supreme Court of LouisL ana, on or before the 13th day of October, 1970, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
#### Duane F. THIELEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, County of Dade, Appellee.

No. 44150.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 280 So.2d 727.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2391 

To direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training to carry out a pilot program on short-term fellowship programs 

for veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 8, 2021 

Mr. CAWTHORN (for himself, Mr. BANKS, Mr. MANN, Ms. TENNEY, and Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To direct the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ 

Employment and Training to carry out a pilot program 

on short-term fellowship programs for veterans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Veterans Fellowship 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PILOT PROGRAM ON SHORT-TERM FELLOWSHIP 

7 PROGRAMS. 

8 (a) AUTHORITY.—The Assistant Secretary of Labor 

9 for Veterans’ Employment and Training shall carry out 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2391 IH

1 a pilot program under which a State may use a grant or 

2 contract under section 4102A(b)(5) of title 38, United 

3 States Code, to carry out a short-term fellowship program. 

4 (b) LOCATIONS; AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary shall 

5 select at least three, but not more than five, States to 

6 carry out a short-term fellowship program pursuant to 

7 subsection (a). Each such State shall enter into an agree8 ment with a non-profit organization to carry out such pro9 gram. 

10 (c) SHORT-TERM FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.—Each 

11 short-term fellowship program carried out by a State pur12 suant to subsection (a) shall— 

13 (1) consist of veterans participating as fellows 

14 with an employer for a period not exceeding 20 

15 weeks; 

16 (2) provide to such veterans a monthly stipend 

17 during such period; and 

18 (3) provide to such veterans an opportunity to 

19 be employed on a long-term basis with the employer 

20 following such period. 

21 (d) COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT.—Not later 

22 than four years after the date on which the pilot program 

23 commences under this section, the Comptroller General of 

24 the United States shall submit to the Committees on VetVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:51 Apr 27, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2391.IH H2391

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2391 IH

1 erans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives and the 

2 Senate a report on the pilot program. 

3 (e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—In addi4 tion to funds made available under section 4102A(b)(5) 

5 of title 38, United States Code, there is authorized to be 

6 appropriated to the Assistant Secretary to carry out the 

7 pilot program under this section $10,000,000 for each of 

8 fiscal years 2021 through 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Willie LEMON, Petitioner, v. Hon. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director Division of Corrections State of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-753.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 29, 1973.

Habeas corpus denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2
 
 CONSENT OF ANGELO GRANDILLO AND BBA INC.
 
 
 Alderon Iron Ore Corp.
 United States Securities and Exchange Commission
 
 Dear Sirs:
 
 RE: ALDERON IRON ORE CORP.
 
 I, Angelo Grandillo, Eng., M.Eng.., Associate and Project Manager of BBA Inc. do hereby consent to filing of the following report.
 
 Reference is made to the technical report entitled “Preliminary Economic Assessment of the Rose Central Deposit and Resource Estimate for the Rose Central, Rose North and Mills Deposits of the Kamistiatusset (Kami) Iron Ore Property, Labrador for Alderon Iron Ore Corp.”dated effective October 26, 2011, which the undersigned has co-authored on behalf of BBA Inc. for Alderon Iron Ore Corp. (the “Technical Report”).
 
 I, on behalf of myself and on behalf of BBA Inc., hereby consent to the inclusion of references to my name and the name of BBA Inc. and references to, and information derived from, the Technical Report, in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Alderon Iron Ore Corp., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
 
 Dated this 30th day of March, 2012.
 
 
 “Angelo Grandillo”
 Angelo Grandillo, Eng., M.Eng.

Associate and Project Manager
#### BEACH ROUNDHOUSE TOWN CORP., and Jenjayjon Corp., Appellants, v. William SKINNER, Appellee.

No. 77-322.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 21, 1978.

Burns & Arnovitz and Jerold H. Reichler, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Lionel Barnet, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal, we are asked to review a final order dismissing two counts of amended complaint brought by the corporate plaintiffs herein Beach Roundhouse Town Corp. and Jenjayjon Corp. against the defendant William Skinner before the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. It is urged that these counts were properly dismissed because the said corporations had no authority from their respective *882boards of directors or corporate officers to bring this suit. This may very well be true, but there is nothing within the four corners of the complaint which alleges such a fact. Therefore, the said counts in the complaint which otherwise state good causes of action were improperly dismissed. *Flye v. Jeffords,*106 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); *Stone v. Stone,*97 So.2d 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957); Section 607.011(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).

The order appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
#### Jose CRUZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. SMALL, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 00-55770.

D.C. No. CV-99-09537-GAF(BQR).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*793Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Cruz, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, *see Miles v. Prunty,*187 F.3d 1104, 1105 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.

Cruz contends that he is entitled to equitable tolling because his state-appointed appellate attorney had a duty to inform him that his petition for review to the California Supreme Court had been denied, and counsel’s failure to do so prevented him from filing his federal habeas petition on time. We disagree.

Counsel’s failure to inform Cruz of the denial of his petition for review is not enough to warrant equitable tolling. *See Frye v. Hickman,*273 F.3d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir.2001) (denying equitable tolling based on counsel’s negligence), *cert, denied,*- U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 1913, 152 L.Ed.2d 823 (2002); *see also Miranda v. Castro,*292 F.3d 1063, 1067-68 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting claim of equitable tolling despite counsel’s mistaken advice about AEDPA deadline).

Moreover, by waiting over a year to inquire about his petition for review, *794then waiting almost another year to file his section 2254 petition, Cruz has failed to demonstrate the diligence necessary for equitable tolling. *See Corjasso v. Ayers,*278 F.3d 874, 877-78 (9th Cir.2002) (approving equitable tolling only upon showing of extraordinary circumstances beyond prisoner’s control).1

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Respondent's Motion for Judicial Notice is denied.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OFPRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350****ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906****OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SMTEK International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31,2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Smith, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 and 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:  October 2, 2003 |
|------------------------|
|                   |
| By:                    |    /s/  Edward J. Smith |   |
|                   | Edward J.  Smith |
|                   | Chief  Executive Officer and President |
|                   | SMTEK  International, Inc. |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,017
<INVENTORY>                                      2,839
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,240
<PP&E>                                         466,525
<DEPRECIATION>                                  82,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 441,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,267
<BONDS>                                        161,388
<COMMON>                                         8,681
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,054
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,271
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   441,747
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                81,085
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   59,487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (206)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,346
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,709
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,586
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,123
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7602

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

EDITH JOSEPHINE STANLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph Robert Goodwin,

District Judge. (CR-00-224; CA-04-818-2)

Submitted: January 26, 2006 Decided: February 3, 2006

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edith Josephine Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erik

S. Goes, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Edith Josephine Stanley seeks to appeal the district

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

to deny as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. This order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of her constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stanley

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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