alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed December 5, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00835-CV

____________

NII-OTABIL NELSON, Appellant

V.

DOREEN E NELSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 245th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2006-31097

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed October 22, 2019. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before December 20, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If 
appellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal 

will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
#### Riter-Conley Manufacturing Company, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Riter-Conley Manfg. Co.*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*162 App. Div. 933, affirmed.

(Argued March 22, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, *725entered April 10, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and upon an order dismissing defendant’s counterclaim. The action was brought to recover a balance due upon a contract for furnishing and erecting the steel work for a bridge. The answer alleged that by the contract for the work the plaintiff agreed to indemnify the defendant against the damages and expenses resulting from any accident to the plaintiff’s employees that might happen during the prosecution of the work, whether due to the negligence of the defendant or otherwise; that on January 1, 1909, four employees of a sub-contractor of plaintiff erecting the bridge, were injured, and two died of their injuries; that four negligence actions were commenced against the defendant; that in three of them judgments have been recovered against the defendant, for which, and expenses, the defendant seeks indemnity under the contract.

*Maurice C. Spratt*and *H. W. Huntington*for appellant.

*Evan Hollister*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Seabury and Pound, JJ.
106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 162

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That the Clerk of the House of Representa3 tives, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R. 4577), making

4 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and

5 Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for

6 the fiscal year ending September 2001, and for other pur7 poses, shall make the following correction:

8 In section 1(a)(4), before the period at the end,

9 insert the following: ‘‘, except that the text of H.R.

10 5666, as so enacted, shall not include section 123

11 (relating to the enactment of H.R. 4904)’’.

Passed the Senate December 15 (legislative day,

September 22), 2000.

Attest:

Secretary.

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 162

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To direct the Clerk of the House of Representatives

to make a correction in the enrollment of H.R.4577.
Exhibit 32.1



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

In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Richard A. Miller, M.D., President and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to   §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C.   §1350), that to my knowledge:

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

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

/



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

In connection with the Annual Report of Pharmacyclics, Inc, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"Report"), I, Leiv Lea, Vice President, Finance and Administration and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to   §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that to my knowledge:

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

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

/
Ex. 10.3
Convertible Promissory Note

                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$300,000.00                 Acton, Massachusetts              February 11, 1998

For value received,  ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS CORP., a Delaware Corporation, with
offices located at P.O. Box 590, Stow,  Massachusetts  01775,  promise to pay to
the order of AGIRA TRADING LTD., at c/o Morgan & Morgan Trust  Corporation  Ltd.
Pasea Estate,  P.O. Box Road Town, Tortola,  British Virgin Islands,  the sum of
Three Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($300,000.00),  together with interest
from the date hereof at the rate of Seven  percent  (7%) per annum  payable upon
demand.

Upon default in the payment of any  installment  of interest or  principal  when
due, which default  continues for a period of more than ten (10) days, the whole
of the  principal  then  remaining  unpaid and all interest  accrued  hereunder,
shall,  at the  option of the holder of this Note,  become  immediately  due and
payable, without further demand or notice. In the event this note is placed into
the  hands  of an  attorney  for  collection  after  maturity  or  default,  the
undersigned agrees to pay for costs of such collection, the amount of such costs
shall be liquidated at fifteen  percent (15%) of the principal and interest then
remaining,  plus all court  costs  and  costs of  service  of  process  incurred
therewith.

In addition to the aforesaid,  upon the occurrence of any of the following, with
respect to any maker or any endorser or guarantor  hereof,  this Promissory Note
shall  immediately  become due and  payable for the full  remaining  blanace and
interest, without notice or demand. The commencement,  by or against any of them
of any  proceeding,  suit or action  (at law or in equity)  for  reorganization,
dissolution  or  liquidation,  suspension or liquidation by any o fthem of their
usual  business,  proceedings  instituted by or against any of them under any of
the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act or amendments thereto;  dissolution (if any
of  the  parties  be  a  partnership  or a  corporation);  application  for,  or
appointment of, a receiver of any of them or their property;  death; issuance of
a writ of attachment;  entry of judgment; admission in writing by any of them of
inability  to pay his or her debts  generally  as they become due;  calling of a
meeting of  creditors;  appointment  of a committee of creditors or  liquidating
agent; or offering a composition or extension to creditors. The undersigned,  if
more than one, shall be jointly and severally bound and liable hereunder, and if
any of the undersigned is a partnership, also the members thereof individually.

THE UNDERSIGNED ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT OF A COPY OF THIS NOTE ON THE DATE ABOVE.

                                             ELECTRO-OPTICAL SYSTEMS CORP.

                                             By:______________________________
                                                CHARLES WEAVER, President

                                             By:______________________________


<PAGE>
#### Ray HUGUET d/b/a Huguet Enterprises v. MUSSO PARTNERSHIP and Musso Builders, Inc.

No. 87-C-1527.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Huguet, Ray d/b/a; Huguet Enterprises; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0492; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. *“A”,*No. 32765.

Prior report: La.App., 509 So.2d 91.

Denied.

DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 23(a)
                                                                   -------------









                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

Presstek, Inc.
Hudson, New Hampshire

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the respective
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (Nos. 33-80466, 33-61215, 33-39337 and
333-76905) and on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-2299 and 33-48342) of Presstek, Inc. and
in the Prospectuses constituting part of such Registration Statements of our
report dated February 13, 2001 relating to the financial statements and schedule
of Presstek, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 30, 2000.

We also consent to the references to us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectuses.



/s/ BDO SEIDMAN, LLP
-----------------------------------
BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 2001
Exhibit
      32.2




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO




18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,




AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906




OF
      THE
      SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Services Partners Acquisition
      Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending January 31, 2007 (the
‘‘Report’’), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I Avinash Vashistha, Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
      President of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Sec. 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, as amended; and




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




Dated:
      March 19, 2007




By: /s/
      Avinash
      Vashistha


Avinash
      Vashistha


Chief
      Financial Officer and Executive Vice President


(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Charles E. BARTLETT, Respondent.

No. 67338.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 5, 1986.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, John T. Berry, Staff Counsel and James N. Watson, Jr., Bar Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

Charles E. Bartlett, in pro. per., Orange Park, for respondent.

BARKETT, Justice.

This disciplinary proceeding is before us on complaint of The Florida Bar and the uncontested report of the referee. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 15, Fla. Const.

The referee found respondent guilty of violating the following:

> DR 1-102(A)(4) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);

> DR 1-102(A)(5) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice);

> DR 1-102(A)(6) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law);

> DR 6-101(A)(l) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter which he knows that he is not competent to handle);

> DR 6-101(A)(2) (a lawyer shall not handle a legal matter without adequate preparation);

> DR 6-101(A)(3) (a lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him);

> Rule 11.02(3)(a) of the Integration Rule (the commission by a lawyer of any act contrary to honesty, justice, or good morals constitutes a cause for discipline).

In the absence of any objection, we approve the referee’s findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, respondent shall be suspended from the practice of law for fifteen months, effective thirty days from the release of this opinion. Reinstatement is conditioned upon proof of rehabilitation which includes satisfactorily passing all the written examinations administered by the Florida Board of Bar Examiners. Judgment for costs in the amount of $812.64 is entered against respondent, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

ADKINS, Acting C.J., and OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur.
Webinar Attendees: Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Public Meeting & Availability of the Framework Document for Refrigerated Beverage V

Meeting Date: Thursday, June 20, 2013

Name Title Organization Street City State Zip Phone Fax

Bouyelas, Steven N/A N/A 225 Apple St. Norco LA 70079 N/A N/A

Gouw, Sean Engineer

Refrigeration & Thermal Test Center (RTTC)

Southern California EdisonAn EDISON INTERNATIONAL Company

6060 N. Irwindale AvenueSuite N

Irwindale CA 91702 626-812-7650 626-812-7599

Jenkins, James N/A N/A 3020 1st Ave E Newton IA 50208 N/A N/A

Lau, Christopher Consultant Navigant Consulting, Inc. 1200 19th Street, NW Washington DC 20036 202-481-7524 202-973-2401.

Layseca-Flores, Erick N/A Wellington Drive Technologies PO Box 57 San Juan Rio N/A 76800 N/A N/A

Nicholson, Laura N/A N/A 1604 Coolidge Avenue Pasadena CA 91104 N/A N/APowell, Patrick N/A Underwriters Laboratories 801 Klein Rd Suite 200 Plano TX 75074 N/A N/A

Sieben, Susan N/A N/A PO Box 4929 Buffalo Grove IL 60089 N/A N/A

Waltner, Meg Energy Efficiency 

Advocate

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

1152 15th Street, NW Suite 300

Washington DC 20005 202-513-6270 202-289-1060 

Wilson, Linda Environmental Scientist New York State Office of the Attorney 

General

120 Broadway New York NY 10271 212-416-8948 212-416-6007 

Zakarian, Arshak N/A N/A 1610 Harrison St. Oakland CA 94612 N/A N/AZehr, Erick Engineering Associate UL - Springboard 3020 1st Ave E Newton IA 50208 N/A N/A
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William OLIVER.

No. 87-K-0286.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1987.

In re Oliver, William; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. KA 86 0497; Parish of Lafourche, 17th Judicial District Court, Div. “A”, No. 161334.

Prior report: La.App., 499 So.2d 295.

Denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1886

SAAD LODHI,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER BRADSHAW; FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA; FAIRFAX COUNTY 

POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Michael Stefan Nachmanoff, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00122-MSN-LRV)

Submitted: January 30, 2024 Decided: February 2, 2024

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saad Usman Lodhi, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1886 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Saad Usman Lodhi appeals the district court’s order denying his second motion for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised 

in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). In his informal brief, Lodhi asserts that another 

judge granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate case filed in the district 

court. Lodhi also complains that the court suddenly cancelled a hearing that was scheduled 

to address his second motion to proceed in forma pauperis. However, Lodhi does not 

challenge the court’s conclusion that, in this case, leave to proceed in forma pauperis was 

unwarranted in light of his stated annual income. Because Lodhi’s informal brief therefore 

fails to challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) 

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1886 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/02/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
### REGISTRATION NOT TRANSFERABLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA This certificate DEPARTMENT

OF TRANSPORTATION- FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION must be in the airw

### CERTIFICATE

OF AIRCRAFT REGISTRATION craft when operated. NATIONALITY AND 

# I

AIRCRAFT SERIAL NO. REGISTRATION MARKS N 53730 BSQ4DUTOE MANUFACTURER AND MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNATION OF AIRCRAFT 

### STEADIDRONE

PTY LTD QU4D ICAO Aircraft Address Code: 

### 51546463 This certificate Is 

### D&C INSPECTION SERVICES INC issued for



### I registration purposes

# s

2215 N REPSDORPH RD only and is not a 

# s

SEABROOK TX 77586·6445 certificate of title. 

## u

The Federal Aviation 

### E

Administration does D

not determine rights of

ownership as 

### T

between private 

### 0

persons. 

### t 

### Corporation 

# ~

It is certified that the above described aircraft has been entered on the register of the Federal Aviation

Adm'tn·tstrafton, Un'tted States of America, In accordance with the Convention on International

Civil Aviation dated

**De~mbe>.** 7, 1944, and with Title 49, United States Code,

U.S. Department and regulations issued thereunder. DATE OF ISSUE 

### February 5, 2015 

# I"Y'~&J of 'transportation **Fe~raf'Aviation** EXPIRATION DATE 

### February 28, 2018

**-,-~~ ·Y£tmi@St;~&in**  : : 

## ..

. -. ----- ··---·-·- 

# .,. z 0 

# I 6 "''1!>..'"\'i:$ 

### POSt:., ,.,

.. l ,...., "=' '-'-{\. 

# f:~,~**~~~~;@~0** 02iR C:J?'»."' 

### 00021lli



# -:.-.~ -..? 

## ,;.;(J;



# e:;,~G . 0 Is



# ~=s c 

# s **~·o;** s P.O. /v'IA:LSD FROiv: Z:?CODE 73168 Oklahoma

City, OK 7312S..Q504 Official Business Penalty

for Priv:rtc Usc $300 AC Form 8050-3 (10/2010) Supersedes previous edition 

### 53730 

# TO: D&C INSPECTION SERVICES INC 2215

N REPSDORPH RD SEABROOK

TX 77S86·6445 

# ') j 1 

## i 1 

## j 

# Ji I 

# J' 'l j' 

# j 1 

## 1 

## i l j 

## i' 1 1 

# i) i 

# j '1 l. 

# ri i 

## i 

## lj) I 

# j j i 

## 1 

## ij> 1 

# j j 1 

## j)' 1 ' 

## i 1 

# j 

# j; j 

# •J
p130646.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0646 Focus Ready Draft 7/18/2013

ENGINEER: Avcin \ AG

Page 1p130646.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0646

Page 3p130646.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT

PMN: 13-0646

Page 4p130646.eng

Page 6
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 13, 2024 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00882-CV
SHANNON K. MCCLENDON, Appellant V. SUSAN A. HILGENFELD, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC2300173

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1).

240822F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE–2– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SHANNON K. MCCLENDON, Appellant

No. 05-24-00882-CV V.

SUSAN A. HILGENFELD, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Hunt County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC2300173.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and Carlyle participating.

In accordance with this Court’s op inion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee SUSAN A. HI LGENFELD recover her costs of this appeal from appella nt SHANNON K. MCCLENDON.

Judgment entered August 13, 2024
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2061

ALAJUAN ROBINSON; REGGIE ROBINSON EL,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

SERGEANT PINTEZ, Monongalia County Sheriff’s Dept., in his individual and 

official capacities; J.D. MORGAN, Monongalia County Sheriff’s Dept., in his 

individual and official capacities; JOHN DOE, tow truck driver WaterFront Towing 

LLC, in his individual and official capacities,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. Thomas S. Kleeh, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00151-TSK-MJA)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 6, 2020

Before MOTZ, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alajuan Robinson, Reggie Robinson El, Appellants Pro Se. Keith C. Gamble, PULLIN, 

FOWLER, FLANAGAN, BROWN & POE, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Alajuan Robinson and Reggie Robinson El appeal the district court’s order 

accepting in part the recommendations of the magistrate judge, denying Robinson and 

Robinson El’s motion to remand the action to state court, and granting Defendants’ motion 

to dismiss Robinson and Robinson El’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2018) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Robinson and 

Robinson El’s motion for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. Robinson v. Pintez, No. 1:18-cv-00151-TSK-MJA (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 10, 

2019). 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.

AFFIRMED