alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Lidia Clark & Kenneth Clark v. U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for the Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust 2005

- 6

Appel late case number: 01

- 11

- 01066

- CV

Trial court case number: 1000493

Trial court: Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2 of Harris County , Texas

The trial court’s judgment in the above

- referenced case was signed November 14 , 2011

. The notice of app eal was filed Novembe r 30 , 2011. The appellate record was due to be filed in this Court by January 13, 2012

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.1. The clerk’s record has been filed. The reporte r’s record has not been filed.

On March 7, 2012 , the Court notified the court reporter, Gina Oliver, that the reporter’s record had not been received for filing and directed that the record be filed no later than March 27, 2012

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35 .1, 37.3(a)(1). The Court directed the reporter to notify the Court by that date if th e pr oceedings were not recorded, if appellant had not requested that the reporter’s record be prepared , or if appellant had not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3 (b) (2)

. The reporter did not respond.

The reporter’s record has been past due for nearly six months . Failure either to file the record or to notify the Court of the status of the record has caused significant delay in the ability of this Court to resolve the parties’ dispute and to deliver justice in the ti mely manner expected.

It is ORDERED that c ourt reporter Gina Oliver file in this Court no later than 5:00 p.m., 10 days from the date of this order either (1) t he reporter’s record

, with all requested exhib its, or (2) a written statement that the pr ocee dings were not recorded, that appellant has not requested that a reporter’s record be prepared , or that appellant has not paid or made arrangement s to pay for the record

. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.2(b), the mailbox rule, is suspended and does no t apply to this deadline. N o motions for extension of time will be entertained absent extraordinary circumsta nces

. Failure to comply with this order may resultin the issuance of a show cause order, notice, and service of citation against Gina Oliver,

co mmanding her to appear before this Court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Michael Massengale

Date: July 17 , 2012
#### The Matter of the SUCCESSION OF Dalton Luke LABORDE.

No. 89-C-1240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Laborde, Sylvia Diane Beard;— Third Party(ies); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 1332; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 45643.

Prior report: La.App., 540 So.2d 966.

Denied.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No.
333-65361, 333-65359, 333-65363, and 333-52928) each on Form S-8 of Franklin
Financial Corporation of our report dated June 20, 2001, relating to the
financial statements and related schedules for the Franklin Financial Employees
Retirement Savings Plan as of and for the years ended December 31, 2000 and
1999, which report appears in Exhibit 99 of this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Franklin Financial Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 2000.


/s/ Heathcott & Mullaly, P.C.

Brentwood, Tennessee
June 28, 2001


                                      -3-
#### Eugene MOORE v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 92-KP-0218.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 16, 1993.

Eugene Moore, pro se.

Michael C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appel-lee.

Appeal No. 1300 from Judgment dated Jan. 6, 1992; Howard Q. Davis, Jr., Ruling Judge, Sunflower County Circuit Court.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and BANKS and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., JJ.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Universal Travel
Group (the "Company"), does hereby certify under the standards set forth and
solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the
Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and information contained in that Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated: May  , 2007                          /s/ Jiangping Jiang
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Jiangping Jiang,
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Honorable Richard H. Battey, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 1

the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-1804

___________

Jacob O. Berry, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Assembly of God, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 6, 1998

 Filed: April 14, 1998

___________

Before BOWMAN, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jacob O. Berry appeals the district court&s conclusion that it lacked subject

1

matter jurisdiction over an action Berry brought against the Assembly of God, General

Council. Based on the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude that the court&s

determination was correct and that an extended discussion is not warranted. The

judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q as
of September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<CIK> 0000846919
<NAME> ESSEX INTERNATIONAL INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,974
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,711
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,409
<INVENTORY>                                    172,599
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               363,085
<PP&E>                                         370,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                 105,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 766,260
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          145,418
<BONDS>                                        401,334
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           456
<OTHER-SE>                                     134,847
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   766,260
<SALES>                                        974,720
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               975,751
<CGS>                                          813,106
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  813,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,879
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 45,068
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,568
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,568
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel., OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. Frederick A. SMITH, Respondent.

No. SCBD 2945.

OBAD 653.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

April 24, 1984.

OPINION

SIMMS, Vice Chief Judge:

Respondent, Frederick A. Smith, was disbarred by order of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, on February 13, 1984. The order of disbarment provided that Smith was convicted of the federal crime of making false statement in an application for a passport in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1542 (1982) and recited that other disciplinary proceedings were completed wherein Smith was found to have neglected legal matters entrusted to him by a number of clients after having charged excessive fees. A certified copy of the New Mexico order was forwarded by General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association to this Court, pursuant to Rule 7.7, Rules Governing Disciplinary Proceedings, 5 O.S.1981, Ch. 1, App. 1-A.

Rule 7.7 provides:

> “DISCIPLINARY ACTION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS AS BASIS FOR DISCIPLINE. When a lawyer has been adjudged guilty of misconduct in a disciplinary proceeding, except contempt proceedings, by the highest court of another state or by a Federal Court, the General Counsel of the Oklahoma Bar Association may cause to be transmitted to the Chief Justice a certified copy of such adjudication and the General Counsel shall direct the lawyer to appear before the Supreme Court at a time certain, not less than ten (10) days after mailing of notice, and show cause, if any he has, why he should not be disciplined. The documents shall constitute the charge and shall be prima facie evidence the lawyer committed the acts therein described. The lawyer may submit a certified copy of the transcript of the evidence taken in the trial tribunal of the other jurisdiction to support his claim that the finding therein was not supported by the evidence or that it does not furnish sufficient grounds for discipline in Oklahoma. The lawyer may also submit, in the interest of explaining his conduct or by way of mitigating the discipline which may be imposed upon him, a brief and/or any evidence tending to mitigate the severity of discipline. The General Counsel may respond by submission of a brief and/or any evidence supporting a recommendation of discipline.”

Show cause order was issued to Respondent directing him to appear before this Court to offer reasons, if any he had, why he should not be disbarred pursuant to the aforesaid Rule 7.7. From the records of the Marshall of the Oklahoma State Supreme Court, Smith was apparently served with the show cause order by regular mail at his last known address in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Respondent failed to appear at the time specified in the show cause order and has failed to file any pleadings in response to the order to show cause.

*750Respondent is therefore Ordered DIS' BARRED.

All the Justices concur.
KeyBank
                                                         One Canal Plaza
                                                         Portland, ME 04101-4035


March 28, 2000

Neil Rossen, CFO
Presstek, Inc.
9 Commercial Street                                      Tel: (800) 452-8762
Hudson, NH 03051-3907

Dear Neil:

Please be advised that KeyBank National Association has approved the following
changes to the financial covenant definitions in our Loan Agreement effective
12/31/1999:

"Tangible Capital Base" means Tangible Net Worth plus Subordinated Debt plus any
non-cash liability recorded as a result of the Shareholder Class Action Suit,
all as determined in accordance with GAAP.

"Debt" means all of the Lessee's liabilities less any non-cash liability
recorded as a result of the Shareholder Class Action Suit, all as determined in
accordance with GAAP.

A condition of approval is that the Borrower shall notify the Bank of any
election to settle the Shareholder Class Action Suit in cash. Such settlement in
cash shall require Bank approval.

We will be forwarding documentation for your review and signature to document
these changes. Please call if you have any questions.

                                            Sincerely,


                                            /s/ Noel B. Graydon
                                            Noel B. Graydon
                                            Senior Vice President
[Cite as State v. Young , 2012-Ohio-1732.]



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO, Respondent-Appellee,

vs. AARON E. YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant. :

:

:

:

: APPEAL NO. C-110274 TRIAL NO. B-0701436

O P I N I O N.

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Appeal Dismissed Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2012

Joseph T. Deters , Hamilton County Pros ecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams

, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellee, Aaron E. Young , pro se.

Please note: We have removed this case from the accelerated calendar.OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



### 2 Per Curiam. 

### {¶1} Petitioner-appellant Aaron E. Young presents on appeal a single assignment of error challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his petition for postconviction relief. We dismiss the appeal because, without findings of fact and conclusions of law, the entry denying his postconviction petition is not a final appealable order. 

### {¶2} Young was convicted upon guilty pleas to multiple counts of aggravated robbery and intimidation. In his direct appeal to this court, we affirmed his

convictions. See State v. Young , 1st Dist. No. C-100065 (Nov. 17, 2010). 

### {¶3} Young also challenged his convictions in a timely filed R.C. 2953.21 petition for postconviction re lief. The common pleas court denied the petition, and this appeal followed. 

### {¶4} When dismissing or denying a timely filed postconviction petition, a common pleas court must make and file findings of fact and conclusions of law. See R.C. 2953.21(C) and (G); State v. Lester , 41 Ohio St.2d 51, 322 N.E.2d 656 (1975), paragraph two of the syllabus. An entry dism issing or denying a postconviction petition “is incomplete and, thus, does not commence the running of the period for filing an appeal therefrom” if the entry does not contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, or if it does not otherwise apprise the petitioner of the basis for the decision or permit meaningful appellate review. State v. Mapson , 1 Ohio St.3d 217, 218, 438 N.E.2d 910 (1982); see State ex rel. Carrion v. Harris , 40 Ohio St.3d 19, 19-20, 530 N.E.2d 1330 (1988). Accord State v. Gholston , 1st Dist. No. C-010789, 2002-Ohio-3674. 

### {¶5} The entry denying Young’s postconviction petition did not include findings of fact and conclusions of law. Nor does the entry otherwise apprise Young ofOHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS



### 3 the basis for the court’s decision or permit meaningful appellate review. Therefore, the entry is not a final appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss Young’s appeal. Appeal dismissed.

H ILDEBRANDT , P.J., D INKELACKER and F ISCHER , JJ.

Please note: The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 90 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 90

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL.

    The rotunda of the United States Capitol is authorized to be used 
on January 20, 2001, by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural 
Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 
for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-
elect of the United States.

            Passed the Senate March 2, 2000.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            S. CON. RES. 90

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    To authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol by the Joint 
Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the 
   proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the 
   President-elect and the Vice President-elect of the United States.
```
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Cara D. Obert, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United Development Funding III, L.P.; 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 suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Intentionally omitted;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of our annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; 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 oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Dated this 14th day of November, 2006.           /s/ Cara D. Obert      Cara D. Obert      Chief Financial Officer of      UMTH Land Development, L.P.,      general partner of the Registrant
#### TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC. and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd., Petitioners, v. The MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC., individually and the Moorings Association, Inc., a Class Representation, Respondents.

No. 66385.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 5, 1986.

Kerry I. Evander of Reinman, Harrell, Silberhorn, Moule & Graham, P.A., Melbourne, for petitioners.

J. Daniel Ennis of Holcomb, Ennis, Theri-ac, Brinson, Amari & Roberts, Cocoa, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

We review *Moorings Association v. Tortoise Island Communities, Inc.,*460 So.2d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), because of direct and express conflict with *Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp.,*65 So.2d 849 (Fla.1953). We have jurisdiction. Art. Y, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.

The facts of the case are set forth in the decision below and do not need to be repeated here. The issue of law is whether an easement by implication from a preexisting use requires an absolute necessity or only a reasonable necessity such as will contribute to the convenient enjoyment of property. The court below held that a reasonable necessity was sufficient. In a well reasoned dissent, Judge Cowart maintained that such easement required an absolute necessity. We agree with Judge Cowart's reasoning and adopt it as our own.

The decision below is quashed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

BOYD, C.J., dissents with an opinion.

BOYD, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent because I believe the district court of appeal was correct. The district court held that the allegations of the complaint, if proven to be true, would establish the respondents’ entitlement to judicial relief under legal precedents recognizing the creation of easements by implied grant. I would approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
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 Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Chisen Electric Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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




Date: February 28, 2011
By:
/s/Liu ChuanjieName:
Liu ChuanjieTitle:
Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Chisen Electric Corporation will be retained by Chisen Electric Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph V. FOSTER, Jr.

No. 87-KO-1956.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Foster, Joseph V. Jr.; applying for remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA86 1519; Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 4868.

Prior report: La.App., 510 So.2d 717.

Granted in part. Court of Appeal opinion vacated as to public trial issue; case remanded to trial court for evidentiary hearing before a different judge on relator’s claim of denial of public trial; trial court may grant new trial if evidence warrants relief. Right of further review on this issue reserved. Otherwise, denied.