alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T HU S S E I N S . HU S S E I N, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. G LEN N M I LLER, D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 08- 15436 D . C. N o . 0 6 - CV - 0 0 7 1 0 - LRH ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da L arryR . H i c ks , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r10, 2012 ** B efo re: W A R D L A W , C A L L A H A N , an dN . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. H u s s e in S . H u s s e in ap p e a ls f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u m m aryju d g m e n t in hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on a l l e gi ng aF i r s tA m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m and a s ta te law d e f

a m a tio n c la im ar is in g o u t o f s ta te m e n ts m a d e b yf

e llo w f a c u lty 

# FI LED OC T 01 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 15436 2 m em ber G l enn M i l l er . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 1 29 1. W e r evi ew d e n o v o , Coszal terv. C i t y of Sa lem , 3 2 0 F . 3 d9 6 8 , 9 7 3 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , an dwe a f f i rm. T h e d i stri ctco u rtp ro p erl y g ran t edsu m m ary j u d g m en to n H u ssei n ’ s F i rst A m e ndm e ntr e t a l i a t i on c l a i m be c aus e H us s e i n f a i l e d t o r a i s e age nui ne di s put e of m a te r ia l f

a c t a s to w h e th e rM ille r ’s s ta te m e n ts ar e a c tio n ab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 . See B la irv . B e th e l Sc h . D is t. , 608 F . 3d 540, 543- 46 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ( di s c us s i ng r e qu ir e m e n ts f

o raF ir s t A m e n d m e n t r e ta lia tio n c la im ) ; G i niv . L as V egas Me tr o. P ol i ceD ep’t , 40 F . 3d 1041, 1045 ( 9th C i r . 1994) ( “ [ D ] a m a ge t o r e put a t i on i s not a c tio n ab le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3 u n le s s it is a c c o m p an ie db y‘s o m e m o r e tan g ib le i nt er es t s. ’ ” ( ci t at i on om i tt ed)) . T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly g ra n tedsu m m ary ju d g m en t o n H u ss ein ’s d e f a m a tio n c la im b e c au s e ar e a s o n ab le p e r s o n , h e ar in g M ille r ’s s ta te m e n ts in c ont e xt , w oul d be l i ke l yt o unde r s t and the s t a t e m e nt s t o be an e xpr e s s i on of M ille r ’s o p in io n an dn o t as ta te m e n t o f e x is tin g f

a c t. Se e P egas us v . R e no N ew spap er

s, Inc. , 57 P . 3d 82, 87- 88 ( N e v. 2003) ( di s c us s i ng f a c t or s f or det erm i ni ng w hether ast at em enti s a ct i on abl e f or pu rposes of defam at i on cl ai m ). AF F I RME D.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Teda Travel Group, Inc.s Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Godfrey Chin Tong Hui, Chief Executive
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, to the best of
my knowledge:

|    |                                                                                                                                                       
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report
  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 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, another 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 Teda Travel Incorporated and will be
retained by Teda Travel Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| |                              
| | -----------------------------
| | /s/ Godfrey Chin Tong Hui    
| |                              
| | Godfrey Chin Tong Hui        
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (Principal Executive Officer)

---
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**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 Forlink Software Corporation, Inc. ("the
      Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I,
      Yi
      He, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
      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 result of operations of the
                Company.






/s/
      Yi
      He


Yi
      He


Chief
      Executive Officer





Dated:
      March 31, 2008
#### John Eugene KELLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-240.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 22, 1971.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Warren H. Petersen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PIERCE, Chief Judge.

Appellant John Eugene Kelley appeals to this Court from a judgment of conviction entered against him by the Hillsborough County Criminal Court of Record on a plea of guilty to an information charging that he burglarized the building known as King Arthur’s Inn in Tampa, and stole therefrom a television set and an air conditioner.

The only assignment of error relied upon by Kelley for reversal is that “the Defendant’s constitutional rights were violated.” This, of course, presents nothing specific for this Court to rule upon, and requires that we only peruse the record filed here to ascertain that he was accorded the basic rights of due process.

The record shows that he freely and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges against him; that he was questioned at length by the trial Judge both as to the voluntariness of his plea and also as to whether or not he did in fact commit the offenses with which he was charged; that he answered affirmatively that he had in fact committed the offenses; that his guilty plea was voluntary and of his own volition; and that he was freely and voluntarily waiving his right to a jury trial in entering his plea of guilty. The Court fully explained to him that he could receive a maximum of fifteen years imprisonment. He admitted he had been on parole at the time he committed the burglary and affirmed that he was without knowledge as *48to what the Parole Commission would do with respect to his remaining parole time.

After conceding in substance the foregoing facts made known in open Court and evidenced here in the transcript of record, Kelley’s Court-appointed counsel representing him on this appeal requested that he be relieved as attorney of record, citing Anders v. State of Cal., 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. On October 20, 1971, we accordingly granted Kelley thirty days therefrom to file any additional brief he desired calling our attention to any matters he felt should be considered by this Court, and also caused a copy of the brief previously filed in his behalf by the local Public Defender to be served upon him. Copies of our order of October 20th were duly served upon Kelley, his counsel, and the Attorney General. No such additional or supplemental brief has been filed here.

It appears to us from the foregoing that Kelley has had the benefit of all his constitutional rights at the trial, also upon this appeal, and that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed.

So ordered.

LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

November 19, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00531

- CV

IN THE INT OF RVM, NM, MBRC, RABC AND SRRC,

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

Trial Court No. 2012

- PA

- 01410 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant s ’ parental rights. The notice of appeal was filed on July 25, 2014. Appellant s are represented on appeal by retained counsel, Mr. Robert Gier. Appellant s ’ brief was originally due on October 6, 2014. On October 3, 2014, Mr. Gier filed a request for an extension of time in which to file appellant s ’

b r ief, stating he had an active civil trial schedule. We granted an extension until October 20, 2014. On October 29, 2014, Mr. Gier requested a second extension, citing an active civil trial schedule and a child’s respiratory difficulties. Mr. Gier expressly “agree[d] to not request any

ad ditional extensions.” On October 31, 2014, we granted Mr. Gier an extension until November 10, 2014 and stated no further extensions of time would be granted.

On November 18, 2014, Mr. Gier filed a third request for an extension, citing the active

trial schedule, a child’s respiratory difficulties, and the size of the record in this appeal. Again, Mr. Gier expressly “agree[d] to not request any additional extensions.”

B ecause this is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appella nts’ parental rights, Rule 6.2 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration mandates that this appeal be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R.

J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. This mandated deadline cannot be re

- set or extended by this court.

We grant Mr. Gier’s request for an extension of time and he is hereby ORDERED to file appellants’ brief no later than November 24, 2014 . No further extensions of time will be considered or granted, and if Mr. Gier fails to file appellants’ brief by November 24, 2014, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 19th day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Wednesday, July 11, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and Publications Project Committee will be held Wednesday, July 11, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. For more information please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org.*                     The agenda will include various IRS issues.                

Dated: June 1, 2018.

Antoinette Ross,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-12205 Filed 6-6-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC

R.L.S. Rental Company, Inc,. d/b/a Mizzou Aviation Complainant, 

### v. City ofJoplin, Missouri Respondent. FAA Docket No. 16-13-06

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME
This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcement Proceedings, 14 CFRPart 16. Pursuant to 14 CFR Part 16, subpart B, the date by which the Director's Determination will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to April14, 2015. An extension oftime is necessary and appropriate for a fair and complete determination inthis case.

dall S. Fiertz irector, Airport Compliance and Management Analysis 

# i~(Mi~ i 

# 11

# 2DJ S Date iCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 10, 2015, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime addressed to: Counsel for Complainant: Shelley A. Ewalt McBreen & Kopko 500 North Broadway Jericho, NY 11753
Respondent: Mr. PeterEdwards 602 South Main Street Joplin, MO 64801 Copy to: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Docket, AGC-610 FAA Airport Compliance and Field Operations, AC0-100

audiaRoberts Office ofAirport Compliance and Management Analysis
#### Pete O. GOODLY v. Dorothy WELLS, Harry Connick, District Attorney for Orleans Parish and Ossie Brown, District Attorney for East Baton Rouge Parish.

No. 61758.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Pete O. Goodly applying for supervisory writs and stay order. Orleans Parish.

Stay order recalled. Writ denied.
#### Milton SATTERWHITE, Jr. v. STATE.

5 Div. 370 and 371.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 4, 1977.

On Remand From Supreme Court of Alabama.

On September 9,1977, the Supreme Court of Alabama, 359 So.2d 819 remanded these cases to this Court with directions. That Court’s order, S.C. 2407, reads in part as follows:

> “IT IS CONSIDERED AND ORDERED that this cause be remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals with directions to remand within 28 days, Case No. 5 Div. 370 and Case No. 5 Div. 371, to the Circuit Court of Randolph County with directions to the Circuit Court of Randolph County to conduct a hearing within 56 days from the date of the order of remand by the Court of Criminal Appeals, to determine the extent of the participation, if any, by W. D. Wood, II in cases 5 Div. 370 and 5 Div. 371.

> “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appellant-respondent, Satterwhite, file any transcript of the hearing within the time and under the provisions of law as apply to appeals in criminal cases, and that the Court of Criminal Appeals forward to this Court any transcript of the proceedings had in the trial court within seven days after receipt, and that jurisdiction of all three cases, Numbers 5 Div. 335, 5 Div. 370, and 5 Div. 371, are hereby retained until the further orders of this Court.”

It is therefore ordered that this cause be and the same is hereby remanded to the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing in full compliance with the order and directive of the Supreme Court; that said hearing be held within the time limitations specified by the Supreme Court; and a full transcript of said hearing be filed with this Court as directed.

A copy of the opinion of the Supreme Court is attached to this order of remand.

Remanded with directions.

All the Judges concur.

Writ of certiorari quashed, Ala., 359 So.2d 821.
#### Lenwood PATTMON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-789.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 20, 1970.

Appeal dismissed..
#### V. Jackson KENNEDY, Appellant, v. Mary E. KENNEDY, Appellee.

No. 73-382.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

FIRST HARTFORD CORPORATION

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

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Hartford Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending January 31, 2006 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),

INeil H. Ellis, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934; and

2.         Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 

           Neil H. Ellis           Neil H. EllisPresident and ChiefExecutive Officer

Date: March 17, 2006
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
                        
                        
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
                             
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Jun-30-1997                                 
<PERIOD-START>                  Jul-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1997
<CASH>                          $  253,626 
<SECURITIES>                    $       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                   $ 1,630,425
<ALLOWANCES>                    $    40,000           
<INVENTORY>                     $       0        
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                $ 2,605,972               
<PP&E>                          $   648,852             
<DEPRECIATION>                  $   557,796             
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  $ 3,600,058             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           $ 3,231,912               
<BONDS>                         $       0         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           $       0        
<PREFERRED>                     $       0         
<COMMON>                        $    10,944           
<OTHER-SE>                      $  (214,851)             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    $ 3,600,058               
<SALES>                         $ 7,892,695               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                $ 7,892,695               
<CGS>                           $ 5,782,767               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   $ 5,782,767               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                $ 3,485,199               
<LOSS-PROVISION>                $       0         
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              $   133,929             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 $(1,509,200)               
<INCOME-TAX>                    $       0        
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             $(1,509,200)    
<DISCONTINUED>                  $       0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 $       0       
<CHANGES>                       $       0       
<NET-INCOME>                    $(1,509,200)    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   $      (.14)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                   $      (.14)    
        


</TABLE>
1

Opinion issued April 11, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00215-CV

———————————

IN RE RONALD HECHT AND RAH CONTRACTORS, INC., Relators

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators, Ronald Hecht and RAH Contractors, Inc. (collectively, “relators”), 

have filed a petition for a writ of mandamus requesting that this Court “issue a writ 

of mandamus” directing the trial court to “not require disclosure of [relators’] 

privileged information and trade secrets.”1

1 The underlying case is Ronald Hecht and RAH Contractors, Inc. v. Avi Ron and 

Urban Meridian Group, Inc., Cause No. 2021-82564, in the 133rd District Court of 

Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Jaclanel McFarland presiding.
2

Relators’ petition does not comply with the requirements enumerated in Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (relator “must file” 

record with mandamus petition containing “certified or sworn copy of every 

document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding”). In the absence of a record, this Court cannot evaluate the 

merits of relators’ petition. See e.g., In re Edwards, No. 01-22-00063-CR, 2022 WL 

710078, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 10, 2022, orig. proceeding 

[mand. denied]) (mem. op.). 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus without 

prejudice to refile a petition for writ of mandamus that complies with the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). All pending motions are 

dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Countiss, and Rivas-Molloy.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-10931 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOE EARL STRONG, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:94-CR-11-1-A

-------------------- February 16, 2000 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Joe Earl Strong (#13096-077) appeals the district court’s order that the sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release run consecutively to a sentence that was to be imposed in No. 4:98-CR-217-Y for criminal conduct that was the basis of the revocation. Strong has not shown that the district court’s order that his revocation sentence run consecutively was plainly

erroneous. See United States v. McCullough , 46 F.3d 400, 401 n.1 (5th Cir. 1995); U.S.S.G. Ch.7, Pt.B, intro. comment.; U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.6). AFFIRMED.
No. 10595.

#### Youngblood et al. *v.*Youngblood et al.

Decided March 31, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Stark county.

*Mr. D. F. Reinoehl*and *Mr. Arthur N.. Kaley,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. Robert H. Day*and *Mr. Eugene G. Willis on,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Price, Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.