alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued March 24, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00998-CV

———————————

JOEL D. MALLORY, Appellant

V.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C. 

AND CODILIS & STAWIARSKI, P.C., Appellees

On Appeal from the 151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2010-64487

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Joel D. Mallory, seeks to appeal the final judgment of the trial 

court dated September 15, 2014. We dismiss the appeal.

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended 
2

to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if, within 30 days after the 

judgment is signed, any party timely files a motion for new trial, motion to modify 

the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law. See id.; TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g). The 

time to file a notice of appeal may also be extended if, within 15 days after the 

deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. 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 15-day extension period provided by Rule 

26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 

(Tex. 1997). 

Here, the trial court signed the final judgment dismissing Mallory’s action 

on September 15, 2014, making the deadline for filing a notice of appeal October 

15, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. There is no motion for new trial in the clerk’s 

record, therefore the deadline to file the notice of appeal was not extended. The 

Notice of appeal was not filed until December 15, 2014. Without a timely filed 

notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(a), (c); 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.
# C_2016310EN.01009401.xml

| 25.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 310/94 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/94

---

P8_TA(2015)0023

The accession of the Russian Federation to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 11 February 2015 on the proposal for a Council decision on the declaration of acceptance by the Member States, in the interest of the European Union, of the accession of the Russian Federation to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (COM(2011)0911 — C8-0266/2014 — 2011/0447(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2016/C 310/20)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2011)0911), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2011)0911),

| — | having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 38, fourth paragraph, of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

| — | having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0266/2014), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 81(3) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (b), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C8-0266/2014),

| — | having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the opinion of the Court of Justice of 14 October 2014,

| — | having regard to Rules 59 and 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 59 and 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0008/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A8-0008/2015),

| 1. | Approves the proposal for a Council decision and approves the acceptance of the accession; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Approves the proposal for a Council decision and approves the acceptance of the accession;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Russian Federation.

---
#### David Lee ROBERTS, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. Clayburn Arnold ANDERSON and Allstate Insurance Company, etc., Respondents.

No. 42244.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 25, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 258 So.2d 518.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., ocncur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 97-50718

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

LUZ MARIA URIAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(P-97-CR-13-1)

______________________________________________

May 25, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Luz Maria Urias appeals her conviction following a jury trial

for possession of marihuana with the intent to distribute. She

argues that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she

knowingly possessed the marihuana, which was contained in two links
2

of PVC pipe wired underneath the truck she was driving. We

disagree. 

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

verdict, we find that the government produced sufficient evidence

to sustain the jury’s finding that Urias knowingly possessed the

marihuana hidden in the carriage of her truck. To begin with,

Urias had control over the truck in which the drugs were concealed.

United States v. Sacerio, 952 F.2d 860, 866 (5th Cir. 1992). In

addition, Urias was nervous and evasive while being questioned by

United States Border Patrol Agent Rodolfo Garcia. This behavior

supports an inference that Urias was aware of the drugs hidden in

her truck. United States v. Diaz-Carreon, 915 F.2d 951, 954-55

(5th Cir. 1990). Finally, the jury was free to credit Garcia’s

testimony that Urias asked him why she was being arrested for

marihuana before he had informed her that the substance found in

the two links of PVC pipe was in fact marihuana. 

AFFIRMED.
1 ROY LYNN FOREHAND

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 2788

_________ _________________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Bay County

. Brantley S. Clark, Jr. , Judge

.

Roy Lynn Forehand, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Matthew Pavese, Assistant Attorne y

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., THOMAS and RAY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### Ronald Allen WATRIDGE, by Next Friend and Aunt, Mrs. Leonard George Head, Jr. v. Homer W. TAYLOR.

No. 44267.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 13, 1967.

Sullivan, Sullivan & Keyes, Jackson, for appellant.

Heidelberg, Woodliff & Franks, W. Swan Yerger, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6923

OLANDIO RAY WORKMAN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

METRO PCS MOBILE PHONE COMPANY; MR. RICHARDSON; MR. LEWIS, 

Greenville County Sheriff’s Office; GREENVILLE COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

OFFICE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Greenville. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (6:17-cv-01208-RBH-KFM)

Submitted: November 15, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Olandio Ray Workman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Olandio Ray Workman seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the 

magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissing Workman’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2012) complaint as to some Defendants and staying the action as to some Defendants. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and 

certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 

54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order

Workman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or 

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

DISMISSED
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3285

To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street, Detroit,

Michigan, as the ‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 14, 1993

Miss COLLINS of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

A BILL

To redesignate the postal facility located at 1401 West Fort

Street, Detroit, Michigan, as the ‘‘George W. Young

Post Office’’.

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION.

2 The postal facility located at 1401 West Fort Street,

3 in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as

4 the ‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

6 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

7 paper, or other record of the United States to the postal

8 facility referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a

9 reference to the ‘‘George W. Young Post Office’’.

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Nos. 16 and 17 MM 2021 

Respondent 

V. 

DION DAVID DERRIG, 

Petitioner 

ORDER

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 23rd day of April, 2021, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc and the Petition for Appointment of Counsel are 

DENIED.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Thomas J. CRAFT, as Executor of the Estate of James E. Craft, Petitioner, v. Honorable Paul DOUGLAS, Circuit Judge of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-897.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Prohibition denied.
#### ARISON SHIPPING COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. KLOSTERS REDERI A/S, doing business as Norwegian Caribbean Lines, Appellee.

No. 72-600.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 21, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 20, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3274 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3274

 To require the Secretary of the Army to carry out such activities as 
 are necessary to stabilize the bluffs along the Mississippi River in 
     the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 13, 1993

  Mr. Parker introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require the Secretary of the Army to carry out such activities as 
 are necessary to stabilize the bluffs along the Mississippi River in 
     the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Historic Natchez Bluffs 
Stabilization Act''.

SEC. 2. STABILIZATION OF NATCHEZ BLUFFS.

    In accordance with the recommendations of the reports prepared by 
the Army Corps of Engineers entitled ``Natchez Bluffs Study'' and 
``Natchez Bluffs Study: Supplement I'', dated September 1985 and June 
1990, respectively, the Secretary of the Army shall carry out such 
activities as are necessary to stabilize the bluffs along the 
Mississippi River in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Army such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.

                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 16, 2009 

l0909 

Order 

 

September 16, 2009 

138670 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138670 

 COA: 290543 

Livingston CC: 07-016940-FH 

ROBERT LEE WALKER, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 26, 2009 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Shiraz Y. Kajee, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(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 Registrant.




/s/ SHIRAZ Y. KAJEEName:Shiraz Y. KajeeDate:November 8, 2016
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3644

To correct the tariff treatment of certain articles covered by the Nairobi

Protocol.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. GRAMS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Ways and Means

A BILL

To correct the tariff treatment of certain articles covered

by the Nairobi Protocol.

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN ARTICLES COVERED BY THE NAIROBI

4 PROTOCOL.

5 The superior text to subheadings 9817.00.92,

6 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96 of the Harmonized Tariff

7 Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting be8 fore the colon the following: ‘‘, parts thereof, and acces9 sories thereto’’.
2

•HR 3644 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

3 (b), the amendment made by section 1 applies with respect

4 to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for con5 sumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the

6 enactment of this Act.

7 (b) RETROACTIVE PROVISION.—Notwithstanding sec8 tion 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 or any other provision

9 of law, upon proper request filed with the appropriate cus10 toms officer within 180 days after the 15th day after the

11 date of the enactment of this Act, any entry or with12 drawal—

13 (1) that was made after August 11, 1985, and

14 before such 15th day; and

15 (2) with respect to which there would have been

16 no duty if the amendment made by section 1 applied

17 to such entry or withdrawal,

18 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend19 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
# C_2017399EN.01021401.xml

| 24.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/214

---

P8_TA(2015)0429

EU-Grenada agreement on the short-stay visa waiver ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 15 December 2015 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Grenada on the short-stay visa waiver (07190/2015 — C8-0144/2015 — 2015/0057(NLE))

(Consent)

(2017/C 399/34)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (07190/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (07190/2015),

| — | having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and Grenada on the short-stay visa waiver (07113/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Agreement between the European Union and Grenada on the short-stay visa waiver (07113/2015),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0144/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0144/2015),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2) and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0326/2015), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0326/2015),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Grenada. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Grenada.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3499 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3499

  To amend the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel 
                             Practices Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 10, 1993

Mr. McCloskey introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly 
 to the Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and Education and 
                                 Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and Personnel 
                             Practices Act.

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

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION; LEAVE TRANSFERS.

    (a) Compensation.--The Defense Department Overseas Teachers Pay and 
Personnel Practices Act (20 U.S.C. 901 and following) is amended--
            (1) in sections 4(a)(2) and 5(c) by striking ``urban''; and
            (2) in section 6 by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) The Director of Dependents' Education, in consultation with 
the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall establish for 
teachers--
            ``(1) a voluntary leave transfer program similar to the one 
        under subchapter III of chapter 63 of title 5, United States 
        Code; and
            ``(2) a voluntary leave bank program similar to the one 
        under subchapter IV of chapter 63 of title 5, United States 
        Code.''.

SEC. 2. RECERTIFICATION.

    Paragraph (5) of section 1413 of the Defense Dependents' Education 
Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 931(5)) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(5) provide for a recertification program for 
        professional personnel employed in the system to obtain not 
        more than 6 semester-hours of graduate or undergraduate 
        coursework in any discipline or subject area taught by schools 
        of the defense dependents' education system, and''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Peter PANTAGES, Petitioner, v. METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS EXAMINING BOARD, Respondent.

No. 66-862.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 20, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
The attachments to this docket item are the redline/strikeout (rlso) versions of the amended rules. 

Subpart A 

Subpart C 

Subpart E 

Subpart F 

Subpart G 

Subpart I 

Subpart N 

Subpart O 

Subpart P 

Subpart Q 

Subpart S 

Subpart U 

Subpart V 

Subpart X 

Subpart Y 

Subpart Z 

Subpart AA 

Subpart CC 

Subpart DD 

Subpart FF 

Subpart HH 

Subpart II 

Subpart LL 

Subpart MM 

Subpart NN 

Subpart OO 

Subpart PP 

Subpart RR 

Subpart TT 

Subpart UU