alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 23

- 00886

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.C.G. , a C hild From the 285th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 13767 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios , Justice Delivered and Filed: December 6, 2023
DIS MI SSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION
On August 21 , 2017, the trial court signed an order establishing the parent

- child relationship and determining conservatorship and visitation. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due

on September 20 , 2017, or a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was due on October 5 , 2017. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1, 26.3; see generally Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (T ex. 1997) (“[A] motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant acting in good faith files a [notice of appeal] beyond the time allowed by Rule [26.1], but within the fifteen

- day period in which the appellant would be entitled to move to extend the filing deadline under Rule [26.3].” (emphasis added)).
On October 2, 2023 , after the deadline to file the notice of appeal, Appellant, the child’s father , filed a notice of appeal. On October 26, 2023 , we advised Appellant that a timely not ice04

- 23

- 00886

- CV

- 2

- of appeal is necessary to invoke this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 2 6.1

. See generally Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617. We ordered Appellant to show cause in writing to this court by November 6, 2023 , why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant responded on November 5, 2023, that this court maintains jurisdiction to

co nsider his appeal because it concerns standing, which may be challenged at any time. We agree that standing may be challenged at any time. See Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd ., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444 (Tex. 1993). However, an order from the trial court may only be appealed within thirty days of its entry under Rule 2 6.1

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1. See generally Verburgt , 959 S.W.2d at 617

. We now dismiss this appeal of the trial court’s August 21 , 2017 order for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
#### GULF STATES THEATRES OF LOUISIANA, INC., et al. v. John A. RICHARDSON and George W. D’Artois.

No. 54009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 4, 1973.

In re: Gulf States Theatres of Louisiana, Inc., United Artists Corporation and Joe Gianforte applying for writs of prohibition and mandamus.

Granted. See Order.

SANDERS, C. J. and SUMMERS, J.,

dissent from the granting of the temporary restraining order. The statute, LSA-R.S. 14:106, is not manifestly unconstitutional and the relators have an adequate remedy in the criminal proceeding; See Osborn v. City of Shreveport, 143 La. 932, 79 So. 542; West v. Winnsboro, 252 La. 605, 211 So.2d 665.

On considering the petition of the rela-tors in the above entitled and numbered cause,

Ordered that Writs of Prohibition and Mandamus issue to Honorable John F. Fant, Judge of the First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo, ordering him to restrain and enjoin John A. Richardson and George W. D’Artois, their agents, servants and employees, and all other persons in active concert with them from making seizures of prints of the motion picture film “Last Tango in Paris”, and from otherwise interfering with the showing of “Last Tango in Paris” at the Don Theatre in Shreveport, Louisiana, pending a judicial determination of the issues.
**Exhibit 31.1****Certifications**I, Dennis R. Wolters, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Day International Group, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.       Date: August 14, 2006 By: /s/ Dennis R. Wolters       Dennis R. Wolters      President and Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive Officer)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

454 

CA 15-01237 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

ASBESTOS LITIGATION.

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

BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF THE 

ESTATE OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS 

EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, 

DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, 

 

V ORDER

A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS, 

AND CRANE CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 2.) 

 

K&L GATES LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL J. ROSS, OF THE PENNSYLVANIA

BAR, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, BUFFALO (DENNIS P. HARLOW OF COUNSEL), FOR

PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Jeremiah

J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered June 5, 2015. The order denied the

motion of defendant Crane Co. for a stay. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs (see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy, 140 AD2d 988;

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts, 63 AD2d 566, 567; see

also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]). 

Entered: July 8, 2016 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
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 the Quarterly Report of Preferred Voice, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mary G. Merritt, Vice President Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                      
|----------------------
|/s/ Mary G. Merritt   
|Mary G. Merritt       
|Vice President Finance
|November 12, 2004
257 La. 619

#### Sarah Alexander HAYES et al. v. HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY et al.

No. 51125.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1971.

In re: Sarah Alexander Hayes, et al. applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 242 So.2d 77.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.
#### AMERICAN OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. DON ALLEN CHEVROLET, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-390.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 26, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000753557
<NAME>                        LBO Capital Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                             63
<SECURITIES>                                   32,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                 315,780
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              348,443
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                348,443
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,020,773
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                        1,210
<OTHER-SE>                                   (673,540)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  348,443
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               15,781
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   7,889
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             67,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (59,809)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (59,809)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)



</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1184 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1184

     To limit the amount of indirect costs that may be incurred in 
 conducting federally sponsored university research and development to 
50 percent of the modified total direct costs related to such research 
                            and development.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 30, 1993

 Mr. Brown (for himself, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Nickles) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                          Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To limit the amount of indirect costs that may be incurred in 
 conducting federally sponsored university research and development to 
50 percent of the modified total direct costs related to such research 
                            and development.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON INDIRECT COSTS INCURRED IN FEDERALLY SPONSORED 
              RESEARCH.

    (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on and 
after the date of the enactment of this Act, each head of a Federal 
agency making a grant to, or entering into a contract with, an 
institution of higher education for research and development, shall 
condition such grant or contract on a requirement that the institution 
not use such grant or contract funds to pay for those indirect costs 
related to such research and development which exceed the amount equal 
to 50 percent of the modified total direct costs that are incurred by 
such institution for such research and development.
    (b) Definitions.--For the purpose of this section--
            (1) the term ``indirect costs'' means administrative costs 
        and the costs of library and student services, building and 
        equipment, and operations and maintenance;
            (2) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
        same meaning given to such term by section 1201(a) of the 
        Higher Education Act of 1965;
            (3) the term ``Federal agency'' means each department, 
        agency or instrumentality of the Federal Government, including 
        an executive agency as defined in section 105 of title 5, 
        United States Code; and
            (4) the term ``modified total direct costs'' means the 
        costs of--
                    (A) salaries and wages;
                    (B) fringe benefits;
                    (C) materials, supplies, services and travel; and
                    (D) awarding a subgrant to, or entering into a 
                subcontract for, not more than $25,000.

                                 <all>
```
#### Janet N. MULLRAY, R. B. Gautier, Jr., and Francis J. Rainer, a partnership, d/b/a the Island Associates, and Burk Builders Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellants, v. AIRE-LOK CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-713.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
IICHAEL fi, FlUCE _ ^^ . -.-. 

m of tftr ©n 

2 4 . 201 0 «««*i-"."^*aa« , wtr ^ *i , v*/!^-—IT 5-l40We » I^Htv Sa» StmlT 

Mr. 1 ^ LaHood ^ ' 

Secmaiy of Transportarion '=' ; < — —, 

U. S Departrnrat of Tmnsporttion ^ Hfi^ ^ 

! 200 Hew JerMy Ave. SE ~p ~"^£3^ 

WmUngtoiu DC 20590 -C" % ' 

Dear 

m- _ 

I am wriang to ^press ray support of an ^^lication for funding sii«nined by Uw Delaware Coj®^ g ' 

Airport AiKh^ty under Hie USDOT's SmaJI Community Air ^rvice Development grant pro-am. 

1 am iware that the Dclai^^re C^ra^ Airpol Author^' dwires to use ttie fimdrng to poform studw for 

the d^mninatioa of potoiSal air service lo ttd from the Mtcncic/DeUiware County ar«i^ as weU as to 

devek^ n fflarkrti^ str^e^ for tWs jdan. 

Detowttre County ReponaJ Afrpwl is m integral part of Ae regional area in which it ^rves. The east 

portioD of Iniana r^resented ^ my osngressional lisorict, Muncii^Delawwc Coimty in 

particilar, hte been ejctrcraely hard hit by tbe loss ^ major ra^ufi^wing entities. The area re|)i^cn^ 

one 0f tti^ highest unerii^!oymem m^s in tim s^te and continue to straggle to ttcbieve uid maintun 

econiHiuc stability. I strw^y believe ^tM feiding of this nK^uesi would enable te Delaware Coun^ 

AiiifXJft Authority Ote op^>Tttmity to offa cominm^ial passen^ ^rvice and »o greatly enhance i^ 

cajabiliy to attra;t potential induWMl clicnK. thereby aiding efforts to restore much-nested economic 

itiiearra. 

B^aa^ this n^^^t for ftmding reflect * c basic p^wpose of ite toill Community An Service 

Develqpi^nt i^^ram, 1 would n^Kctfiitiy j^i ^ ttitti you give tfiis i^plicati^i for fimding yow' most 

thot^tfiil m^ serious consiitoration. You say dirrot any iW|KJi»e or qu^on s m my De^ly DisWW 

D^Wor, Kim Bram^ « 107 W. ChartwSt., Muncie,IN47305jOr«t krmit«inrtu^ail.hon^„gov. 

TTiank you fc your kind coosito«iOT of this \my important and worthwhile requ^t. 

( L ^ 

S o^ District, Indiana 

kJb 

cc: Steve Lesch. ExKiitivt Direclof, Deiawart Count) Regional .^Ur^rt
EXHIBIT 31.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Alya Hidayatallah, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Aly Energy Services, Inc.;




2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.




4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:




a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;




b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and




c. presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;




5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):




a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and




b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and




6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.






Date: September 23, 2013
By:
/s/ Alya HidayatallahAlya HidayatallahChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### BINKLEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Petitioners, v. The FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION and the Special Disability Trust Fund, Respondents.

No. 40381.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 9, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1999
<CASH>                                          11,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,942
<ALLOWANCES>                                       500
<INVENTORY>                                     72,775
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               185,536
<PP&E>                                         857,081
<DEPRECIATION>                                 478,417
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 655,418
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,520
<BONDS>                                        483,006
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       138,601
<OTHER-SE>                                   (193,145)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   655,418
<SALES>                                        201,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               201,165
<CGS>                                          193,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  193,043
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,426
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,571)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       432
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (27,003)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,003)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. C. M. PENN, Jr., et al.

No. 53553.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 21, 1973.

In re: Claude M. Penn, Jr., O. L. George and Jim Pourrier applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 275 So.2d 221.

Writ denied. No error of law.
#### In the Matter of Nache Africa, Petitioner, v Francis Affronti, Respondent.

[656 NYS2d 1005]

Motion granted and petition dismissed without costs. Memorandum: Petitioner properly commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding by filing a notice of petition and petition in the Office of the Clerk of this Court *(see, Spodek v New York State Commr. of Taxation & Fin.,*85 NY2d 760). Petitioner, however, failed to serve a notice of petition and petition on respondent, and the petition is not verified by petitioner as required by CPLR 7804 (d). Therefore, the petition must be dismissed *(see, Spodek v New York State Commr. of Taxation & Fin., supra).*Present—Green, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.