alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES et al., Appellants, v. CLAY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., a corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-46.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

*403Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Jerry E. Oxner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

W. C. O’Neal, of Chandler, O’Neal, Av-era, Gray, Lang & Stripling, Gainesville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

In this appeal from a judgment entered after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee, we think the only points raised by the appellants which warrant consideration by us on this case are: (1) Did the trial court err in failing to charge the jury as to the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur, and (2) Did the charge relating to “The Act of God” properly instruct the jury as to the law?

We find that of the three elements of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur contended by the appellants, the first two are present in this case, but not the third. It is revealed by the testimony, even from appellants’ own witness, that lightning had struck the cross-member of the appellee’s power line, shattering it and as a result the power line had sagged close to the ground. There was no conflict in the fact that the live power line sagging resulted in the death of a goodly number of appellants’ milk cows.

The trial court announced to counsel that the court would not give the res ipsa loquitur charge. Under the facts of this case, we agree with the trial court. There is no evidence of negligence, but if there had been, it was a jury question, and the court so charged the jury and the jury did not find negligence.

The trial court correctly instructed the jury as to what constituted “an Act of God” which would release the defendant from liability. Whether or not the evidence adduced by either party was sufficient to sustain the contention that the damages resulted from an Act of God was a jury question. We will not attempt to substitute our judgment for that of the jury.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

WIGGINTON, Acting C. J. (Retired), and SPECTOR, J., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1.2**

 

**Certification Required Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Robert Hoglund, the Chief Financial Officer of Consolidated Edison, Inc. (the“Company”) certify that the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, which this statement accompanies, (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: February 22, 2008
#### James Doc BAILEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-314.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 18, 1972.

Walter N. Colbath, Jr., Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have examined the record and briefs filed in this appeal. We feel the requirements of the Frank v. State, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 117, Markman v. State, Fla.App. 1968, 210 So.2d 486 and Arant v. State, First District Court of Appeal, 256 So.2d 515, opinion filed January 18, 1972, cases have been met here. There was ample evidence *352submitted to the jury that defendant had sufficient knowledge of and control over the drugs to constitute possession. We, therefore, affirm.

Affirmed.

REED, C. J., and WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1655

WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, As Carrier for Ragland Coal Co., 

Inc.,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED 

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ROGER D. ADKINS,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board 

(11-0450 BLA, 11-0450 BLA-A).

Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: June 3, 2014

Before SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ashley M. Harman, Tiffany B. Davis, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, 

Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, 

Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Gary 

K. Stearman, Rita A. Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C.; Leonard J. Stayton, Inez, Kentucky, for 

Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

West Virginia CWP Fund seeks review of the Benefits 

Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative 

law judge’s award of black lung benefits to Roger D. Adkins

pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012). Our review of the 

record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon 

substantial evidence and is without reversible error. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons 

stated by the Board. West Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., OWCP, Nos. 11-

0450 BLA, 11-0450 BLA-A (B.R.B. Mar. 23, 2012). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1781 

To amend the Clean Air Act to clarify the definition of accidental release, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2013 

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, and Mr. CRAPO) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Clean Air Act to clarify the definition of 

accidental release, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘General Duty Clari5 fication Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTAL RELEASES. 

7 Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

8 7412(r)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1)— 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1781 IS

1 (A) by striking ‘‘It shall be the objective’’ 

2 and inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the objec4 tive’’; and 

5 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(B) REGULATIONS.— 

7 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 12 

8 months after the date of enactment of the 

9 General Duty Clarification Act of 2013, 

10 the Administrator shall promulgate regula11 tions defining the terms ‘extremely haz12 ardous substance’, ‘appropriate hazard as13 sessment techniques’, and ‘design and 

14 maintain a safe facility’ as used in this 

15 subsection. 

16 ‘‘(ii) UNIFORMITY.—Not later than 18 

17 months after the date of enactment of the 

18 General Duty Clarification Act of 2013, 

19 the Administrator shall issue guidelines to 

20 ensure that this paragraph is enforced by 

21 the regional offices of the Environmental 

22 Protection Agency in a uniform and appro23 priate manner across all regions of the 

24 United States.’’; 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1781 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘, other 

2 than an emission resulting from an act intended to 

3 cause harm’’ before the period at the end; and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(12) DESIGNS, APPROACHES, OR TECH6 NOLOGIES.—In exercising any authority under this 

7 subsection, the Administrator shall not, directly or 

8 indirectly, impose any obligation on any owner or 

9 operator of any stationary source to consider or im10 plement particular designs, approaches, or tech11 nologies relating to manufacturing, processing, han12 dling, or storage.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00029-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 431st District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-5447-431

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Walker, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

MARK C. BOULDIN, Appellant

V.

UMB BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered appellant’s “Opposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and 

Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief.” Previously, on May 5, 2022, we granted the 

part of appellant’s motion requesting an extension of time to file appellant’s brief. We 

now grant the part of appellant’s motion requesting dismissal of the appeal, and, 

accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d), 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: May 19, 2022
No. 11748.

#### The Cincinnati Northern Railroad Co. *v.*Class.

Decided October 26, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Van Wert county.

*Mr. B. B. Nelson; Mr. IP. G. Dickie*and *Mr. Leonard J. Hackney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Dailey & Allen,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, * C. J., Summers, Sitauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Honeywell’s Geismar Plant Personnel Monitoring Data for R - 134a - SANITIZED
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LS POWER FUNDING CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 338,473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        332,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           1
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   338,473
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,415
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.43

                           [LETTERHEAD OF BANK EXIM]

                              CONFIRMATION LETTER


DATE       :OCTOBER 21, 1998
NUMBER     :****/**0/*/**
REF        :BANK GUARANTEE

DEAR SIR,

WE, PT. BANK EKSPOR IMPOR INDONESIA (PERSERO) JAKARTA PLAZA EXIM BRANCH JL.
GATOT SUBROTO KAV. 36-38, JAKARTA INDONESIA. DO HEREBY CONFIRM THAT OUR LETTER
ISSUED THE INSTRUMENT AS FOLLOWS:

TYPE                  :BANK GUARANTEE
NUMBER                :**6/****-**/*/**
AMOUNT                :US$ 25,000,000.00 (US DOLLARS TWENTY FIVE MILLION)
ISSUED DATE           :OCTOBER 21, 1998
MATURITY DATE         :OCTOBER 21, 2000

TYPE                  :BANK GUARANTEE
NUMBER                :**7/****-**/*/**
AMOUNT                :US$ 25,000,000.00 (US DOLLARS TWENTY FIVE MILLION)
ISSUED DATE           :OCTOBER 21, 1998
MATURITY DATE         :OCTOBER 21, 2000

BANK ADDRESS          :JL. GATOT SUBROTO KAV. 36-38 JAKARTA-INDONESIA
TELEPHONE NO.         :****
FACSIMILE             :****
TELEX NO.             :****

THIS LETTER HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN OUR OFFICE JAKARTA AND ANY CLARIFICATION OR
VALIDATION OF THIS LETTER  HAS TO BE ADDRESSED TO THE UNDERSIGNED AND OUR
OFFICE. JAKARTA PLAZA EXIM BRANCH, JAKARTA INDONESIA.

BEST REGARDS,
PT. BANK EKSPOR IMPOR INDONESIA (PERSERO)
    JAKARTA PLAZA EXIM BRANCH

          [SEAL]

     /s/ ****
     -----------------
          B.43.B


ENDORSEMENT BANK INDONESIA
           [SEAL]


/s/ ****
--------------------------
Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 1 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 2 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 3 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 4 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 5 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 6 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 7 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 8 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 9 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 10 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 11 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 12 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 13 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 14 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 15 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 16 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 17 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 18 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 19 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 20 of 21Case: 12-14842 Date Filed: 11/24/2014 Page: 21 of 21
No. 11187.

#### Rogers *v.*The City of Bowling Green.

Decided October 12, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Wood county.

*Messrs. James & Kelly*and *Mr. Edward Beverstock,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. P. J. Chase,*city solicitor, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Crew, C. J., Spear and Sitauck, JJ., concur.
lewastert CENSUS b

rc SCHEDULE No. 1.
0h otlr oston of eo Bittowsys Lo

aa RP a TE CT

sin nt eh a os in lassen (Be ntldye rd, atl

| ml ! |
. UNITED STATES, | f 1804,

PULATION, | [mpipinen jm |

hel

—-| Mame of Institution,

‘ + Brumerated by me of the LH... day of dune, 1900, |_|

<__, Eaumerathy l

cosaraanfagpe o= | moocanion | oun

Spare tig hata all Se

pent tana tlt rg et 8 | |
i

j
i
H

z Pe eel of aad
oe ld baal atte 2! 3 | abe

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

=— ft |Priageera 2481 1 oh Chis 4 |atlected 1 fw”
— Be bhelaclig Ml phe ete emi
Mzinchant Ip) | Hes lor lailect. es = | lod, I i
ae Le SRB bf eo ni Pe decay |) | | ee. eee
a oshhted 20g. a Paclanle nll fee tt a
w i ey 77 Oe a |. Ghew NV) \Gelekenthe 7} alee Se!
of Ee ae eh ge ih ae eee
Ars wilde lease Li bh i Ae
Doaeg Maak\ Vang liego) #5. |_[] "Gh. |...) Ce eeken 2.
Dasgia.| 344 19 est {| fn Cb nbrry | |g!) |
Doses A Voguatlails [1 oA me
Peck Fs eae al To Oke aba. 2 Ree
Lf |e lee | depe\déralra lon |e be Sher i ees LP]
Vowence [seas (9. lagels te |_| il on Cee IF]
seg Md | 1 Hl Bho | . ae im
Pevmea rt ji bha Gt kot | \e\_| \" y=
a iL Obs Lovie | tal Neel a i L
Bhs...}H) a nt i |e [
7 ote re Ky
pay aes Godan cl i le ele \
La ie im to
dermal Lil | Healawn, | | “igh mt
Wied shad oma al Is (gclaclal Pie to
Yoke [aden a Od anf — - aa
Dngsi, Q Che i tata ®
brid = i Pars a
al 7 Teele jobetcren |. |
an i ba
Dw Be
ert] a = el Teal ge
al. | a | (Sele
my! J lide ile 4!
mle [7 ab] feted, gal
s bt. Gl
Fi Gh 4.)
Ts fe ight be
ENE Aibreenenery L 2
fad be [a tee
Ws] Do abl
fe iain,
#### Mary Jo METCALFE, Appellant, v. Robert A. METCALFE, Appellee.

No. 71-986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 30, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### ALLSTATE MORTGAGE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Robert LEWIN, Appellees.

No. 70-1246.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

5
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
 
 
 I, David G. Zahka, Chief Financial Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"), have reviewed the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 and, based on the inquiries I have made or caused to be made in the fulfillment of my responsibilities as the Chief Financial Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc., I hereby certify that:
 
 (i) the Talk America Holdings, Inc. Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of Talk America Holdings, Inc.
 
 This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Financial Officer of Talk America Holdings, Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Talk America Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Talk America Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 
 /s/ David G. Zahka
 David G. Zahka
 Chief Financial Officer
 August 12, 2003
MODIFY, AFFIRM, REVERSE and REMAND, and Opinion Filed April 23, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00035

- CV

DAVID EOFF , Appellant
V.
CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COM PANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 09034



### SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown Opinion by Justice Fillmore
In our opinion dated Ap ril 7, 2015, we suggest ed a remittitur of $4,319.25 of the actual

damages awarded to Central Mutual Insurance Company (Central Mutual). We stated that if the

remittitur was filed by Central Mutual within fifteen days of the date of the opinion, we would

m odify the trial court’s judgment with respect to the damages awarded and affirm as modified.

On April 15, 2015, Central Mutual timely filed its consent to the suggestion of remittitur

and asked this Court to modify the trial court’s judgment consistent wit h our opinion and

judgment in this matter. Accordingly, we vacate our judgment, but not our opinion, dated April

7, 2015, and modify the trial court’s judgment with respect to damages awarded to reflect the

remittitur of $4,319.25. The trial court’s judg ment is modified to award Central Mutual $1,200

in actual damages. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 46.3. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.– 2

– We remand this case to the trial court for a recalculation of prejudgment interest on the awarded

damages.

140035SF.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/
ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DAVID EOFF, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00035

- CV V.

CENTRAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas,
Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 09034. Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

We vacate our judgment dated April 7, 2015. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of April 7, 2015 and supplemental opinion of April 23, 2015, we MODIFY the trial court’s judgment to award appellee Central Mutual Insurance Company actual damages in the amount of $1,200.00.

We REVERSE the trial court’s judgment awarding appellee Central Mutual Insurance Company prejudgment interest and REMAND for recalculation of the amount of prejudgment interest.

It is ORDERED that, as modified, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED in all other respects.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 23rd day of April, 2015.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4
 
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-44399, 33-80993, 33-80995, 33-91506 and 33-93148) on Form S-8 and the
Registration Statements (Nos. 333-03351 and 333-03766) on Form S-3 of Cox
Communications, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 1998, except for Note 8, as
to which the date is February 25, 1998 (relating to the combined consolidated
financial statements of Cox Communications PCS, L.P. and subsidiaries and Cox
Communications PCS, Inc. and subsidiary), appearing in the Annual Report on Form
10-K of Cox Communications, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Costa Mesa, California
March 17, 1998
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 27, 2020 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00188-CV JEFFORY G. SNOWDEN, Appellant V. BRIAN RAVKIND, TRACY EDMONDSON G AMBLE D/B/A FRISCO STRONG, AND MEGAN DEWOLFE, Appellees On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366-02116-2018



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, J ustice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns Before the Court is the motion of Jeffory G. Snowden for an ex tension of time to file a petition for permissive appeal. Snowden seeks permission to ap peal the trial cour t’s order signed on January 10, 2020. A petition for permissive appeal must be filed within fifteen days after the date the order to be appealed is signed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.3(c). An extension of time may be granted if the party files the petition within fifteen days aft er the deadline and files a motion for extension. See id . 28.3(d)(1)-(2). The petition for permissive appeal was due on January 25, 2020

. See id . 28.3(c). Snowden filed a timely extension motion on Febr uary 10, 2020. See id . 4.1(a), 28.3. Howev er, he filed the petition for permissive appeal on February 11, 2020, one day pa st the fifteen-day grace period.–2– Accordingly, we deny the motion for an extension of time to fil e the petition for permissive appeal and dismiss the petition for pe rmissive appeal as untimely.

200188F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE