alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 27 , 202 1

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00100 - CR CHRISTOPHER ROMMELL MCKINNEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal fro m t he 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 19 - 75306 - M

O RDER A fter the Court granted several extension s of time, a ppellant ’ s brief was due

on March 31 , 2021. To d ate , no brief or motion has been filed, and we have had no other communication regarding this appeal

. W e ORDER th e trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why app ellant’s b rief has not been filed. In this regard, th e tria l court shall make appro priat e finding s and recommendations and determine whether appell ant desires to prosecute th is a ppeal , w he t h er appellan t has abandoned the appeal , orwhether appointed cou nse l has aba ndoned the appeal

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38 .8 ( b ).

If the trial court cannot obtai n appel lant’s presence at the hearing, the trial c ourt shal l conduct the hearing in ap pe llant’s ab s enc e. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 198 7, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indig en t, the trial court is ORDERED to t ake s uch m easures as may be necessary to assure effec tive repres entation, which may include appointme n t of new counsel

. We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of t he proce edings, which shall include written findin gs and r ecommendations, to this Cour t wit hin T WENTY DAYS of the date of this order. We DI RECT the Cl erk to send copies of this order to t h e Honorable Ernest W hite , Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District C ourt ; to Valencia Bush ; and to the Dallas County Di strict Attorney’s Office , Appellate Division

. Th is appeal i s ABATE D to allow the trial court to com ply with the above order. The a pp eal shall b e r e instate d t wenty days from the date of this order or

w hen the Court finds it appropriate to do so. /s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
EXHIBIT
32.1





SECTION
1350 CERTIFICATIONS





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 Exobox Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Robert B. Dillon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, these financial statements were not reviewed by
our independent registered public accountants; and





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








Date:  June
17, 2008








/s/
Robert B. Dillon


Chief
Executive Officer






17
#### Raymon A. LAWSON, Appellant, v. CERTIFIED GROCERS and Crump Special Services, Appellees.

No. BT-139.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 1, 1988.

Dorothy Clay Sims of Chalkley & Sims, Ocala, for appellant.

Jack A. Langdon of Langdon & McCarty, Gainesville, for appellees.

NIMMONS, Judge.

We affirm the deputy commissioner’s order denying Lawson’s claim for additional medical treatment beyond the follow-up care at the Miami Pain Clinic voluntarily provided by the employer/carrier. However, we reverse the order insofar as it denied ongoing psychiatric treatment inasmuch as there is no competent substantial evidence to support such denial.

The deputy’s reliance upon Dr. Roso-moff, a neurosurgeon and director of the Miami Pain Clinic, for the conclusion that the claimant was not in need of further psychiatric treatment is erroneous. Dr. Henderson, claimant’s treating psychiatrist, who had been seeing claimant with the consent of the employer/carrier, testified that the claimant had not yet reached *986maximum medical improvement from a psychiatric standpoint and that the claimant was at risk of severe decompensation if psychiatric treatment were discontinued. On cross-examination, Dr. Rosomoff effectively deferred to Dr. Henderson’s judgment regarding the necessity for ongoing psychiatric treatment.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part and REMANDED for the entry of an amended order consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Blackman, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from *483a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered January 13, 1987, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We reject the defendant’s contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. It is well-settled that, when viewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, care must be taken to avoid confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics. The performance of counsel must be viewed without the benefit of hindsight and, if counsel provided meaningful representation in the context of the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the particular case, the constitutional requirement will have been met *(People v Brown,*143 AD2d 1026).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. The record reveals that defense counsel raised appropriate objections, made appropriate motions, conducted vigorous cross-examination of the People’s witnesses, and delivered cogent opening and closing arguments. Thus, the defendant was provided with meaningful representation *(see, People v Hewlett,*71 NY2d 841; *People v Cartagena,*128 AD2d 797).

We find that the defendant’s sentence was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Lawrence and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-102221 of Radiant Systems, Inc. on Form S-3 and inRegistration Statements No.’s 333-23237, 333-41327, 333-62157 and 333-71892 of Radiant Systems, Inc. on Forms S-8 of our report dated March 12, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Radiant Systems, Inc as ofand for the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2002 (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 142, Goodwilland Other Intangible Assets on January 1, 2002 and the application of procedures relating to certain disclosures and adjustments of financial statement amounts related to the 2001 financial statements that were audited by other auditors who haveceased operations and for which we have expressed no opinion or other form of assurance other than with respect to such disclosures and adjustments) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Radiant Systems, Inc. for the year ended December31, 2003. 

 

/s/ Deloitte and Touche LLP

Atlanta, GA 

March 15, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 110 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 110

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2000

          Referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the tenth anniversary of the 
reestablishment of its independence from the rule of the former Soviet 
                                 Union.

Whereas the United States had never recognized the forcible incorporation of the 
        Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the former Soviet 
        Union;
Whereas the declaration on May 4, 1990, of the reestablishment of full 
        sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Latvia furthered the 
        disintegration of the former Soviet Union;
Whereas Latvia since then has successfully built democracy, passed legislation 
        on human and minority rights that conform to European and international 
        norms, ensured the rule of law, developed a free market economy, and 
        consistently pursued a course of integration into the community of free 
        and democratic nations by seeking membership in the European Union and 
        the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and
Whereas Latvia, as a result of the progress of its political and economic 
        reforms, has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution 
        toward the maintenance of international peace and stability by, among 
        other actions, its participation in NATO-led peacekeeping operations in 
        Bosnia and Kosovo: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That Congress hereby--
            (1) congratulates Latvia on the occasion of the tenth 
        anniversary of the reestablishment of its independence and the 
        role it played in the disintegration of the former Soviet 
        Union; and
            (2) commends Latvia for its success in implementing 
        political and economic reforms, which may further speed the 
        process of that country's integration into European and Western 
        institutions.

            Passed the Senate May 24, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, John H. Heyman, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,
the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 5, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ JOHN H. HEYMAN                     
|                     |  |  |  | John H. Heyman, Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Mark E. Haidet, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge,
the foregoing Annual Report of Radiant Systems, Inc. (the Company):



| | (1) | fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78 m or 78o(d), and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|Dated: March 5, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ MARK E. HAIDET                     
|                     |  |  |  | Mark E. Haidet, Chief Financial Officer
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 13, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 127750 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JUDITH ANN LAFUENTE, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 127750 COA: 249551 Oakland CC: 02-041264-NO CHERRY HILL LANES NORTH, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C AVANAGH and K ELLY , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.

d1006 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 13, 2005

Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheet, Consolidated Statement of Operations, Consolidated
Statements of Changes in Shareholders' Investment, Consolidated Statements of
Cash Flows and Notes to Consolidated Statements, and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements and notes to Consolidated Statements.
</LEGEND>


<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         1057368
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   442992
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     201700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4514148
<PP&E>                                        84449083
<DEPRECIATION>                                  775401
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               102892956
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8226661
<BONDS>                                       83592136
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        295
<COMMON>                                          4788
<OTHER-SE>                                    13312032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 102892956
<SALES>                                       14148049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              14148049
<CGS>                                         10708414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 10708414
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2068440
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1482772
<INCOME-TAX>                                    472014
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             636050
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    636050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7108

STANLEY WALLACE MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-446-7) Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 8, 1999 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stanley Wallace Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).1 Because the district court’s order informed Miller that he had sixty days to appeal, we consider his notice of appeal timely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a); Butler v. Coral Volkswagen, Inc. , 804 F.2d 612, 615-17 (11th Cir. 1986). 2 Although the district court’s order is marked “filed” on June 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 18, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM: Stanley Wallace Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). 1 We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Miller v. Warden, Keen Mountain , No. CA-99-446-7 (W.D. Va. June 18, 1999). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Hugh L. Fox et al., Appellants, *v.*Frederick F. Proctor, Respondent.

Appeal—unanimous affirmance of judgment of Municipal Court — Court of Appeals precluded from inquiring as to sufficiency of proof.

Where a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate. Term and by the Appellate Division, the unanimous affirmance rule prohibits the Court of Appeals from inquiring into the sufficiency of the proof to establish the facts upon which the judgment is based.

*Fox*v. Proctor, 160 App. Div. 712, affirmed.

(Argued March 21, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 6, 1914, -affirming a determination of the Appellate Term which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a decision of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in an action to *712recover for goods sold and delivered. The facts upon which plaintiffs claim their right to recover are as follows: 1. That the merchandise was delivered by the plaintiffs to defendant on thirty days’ trial. 2. That no notice of rejection, dissatisfaction or disapproval was given within the thirty days. Upon these facts plaintiffs claim that by reason of the provision of section 100 of the Personal Property Law the property in the goods passed to the defendant at the expiration of the thirty days, and that thereupon the defendant became liable for the price-.

*William C. Rosenberg*for appellants.

*Millard F. Tompkins*and *William F. S. Hart*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This appeal comes to this court by permission of the Appellate Division, which has affirmed a determination of the Appellate Term, which had affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York in favor of the defendant in an action for goods sold and delivered. The pleadings were oral. The plaintiffs claimed for goods sold and delivered. The defendant interposed a general denial. The Municipal Court, after hearing evidence for both parties, rendered judgment for the defendant. The affirmance of this judgment being unanimous it imports that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court that there was no sale. The unanimous affirmance - rule prohibits us from.inquiring into the sufficiency of the proof to establish the alleged sale, which is the only question argued by counsel or discussed by the court below. For this reason, and without passing upon that question, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddebaok, Cardozo and Pound, JJ., concur; Seabury, J., not sitting.

Judgment affirmed.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Sheila Diane Fisher and Darrell Wayne Fisher

No. 06

- 20

- 00101

- CV Appeal from the 429th District Court of

Collin County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No. 429

- 00005

- 2019 )

. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that each party bear its own costs incurred by reaso n of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 6, 2021

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6339]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel Peer Review of Systems Biology (P50) 
Grant. Applications
    Date: April 5, 2012.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Contact Person: C. Craig Hyde, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive, Room 
3An.18A, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-435-3825, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f6c673d794f61666721686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d8bbb0eaae98b6b1b0f6bfb7ae">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 9, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-6339 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>