alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the Supreme Court of the State of Montana Supreme Court No. DA 22-0547 State of Montana, Plaintiff & Appellee,

-vsDaniel Christopher Rowe, Defendant & Appellant. ORDER Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including February 13, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal. 01/12/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0547Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 12 2023
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Brady Craig Koch, Jr. v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 4

- 00 248

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 861254

Trial court: County Criminal Court at Law No. 5 of Harris County

On November 20, 2014, t his case was abated and remanded to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine, inter alia , the reasons why appellant’s counsel had failed to timely file a brief on appellant’s behalf. On December 12, 2014, the supplemental clerk’s record was filed with the trial court’s findings of fact from the abatement hearing, held on December 5, 2014, and that hearing record was filed on Decemb er 9, 2014 . The

trial court requested an extension of time for appellant to prosecute this appeal because it

had found that appellant’s counsel had been delayed in preparing a ppellant’s brief due to

a lack of payment by appellant for the reporter’s record . The trial court further found that appellant was not indigent and w ould make his first reporter’s record payment o n December 5, 2014 . On December 9, 2014, the Clerk of this Court granted the reporter’s request for an extension of time to file the repor ter’s record until January 5, 2015, because appellant had made record payment arrangements on December 5, 2014.

Although this Court’s September 25, 2014 order stated that this Court would only consider and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision, appellant has now paid for the reporter’s record. Accordingly, we REINSTATE th is case on the Court’s active docket and ORDER appellant’s brief to be filed within 30 days of the filing of the reporter’s record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.6(a ) (2)

. The State’s brief , if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of appellant’s brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually

Date: December 18, 2014
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Walter B. DUNAGAN, Respondent.

No. 69592.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1987.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, and David G. McGunegle, Bar Counsel, Orlando, for complainant.

*292Walter B. Dunagan, Daytona Beach, in pro se.

PER CURIAM.

This disciplinary proceeding is before the Court for consideration of a referee’s report filed pursuant to Rule 3-7.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar.

Upon trial of the charges made in a complaint filed by The Florida Bar, the referee found that respondent Walter B. Dunagan had entered into a business transaction with his client without advising the client to obtain independent legal counsel. The referee recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Disciplinary Rule 5-104(A) of the former Florida Bar Code of Professional Responsibility. D.R. 5-104(A) provides: “A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise his professional judgment therein for the protection of the client, unless the client has consented after full disclosure.” The referee recommended a public reprimand and probation for six months.

Neither party seeks review of the referee’s report. Therefore the referee’s findings of fact are deemed conclusive and the recommended disciplinary measures are adopted. Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, Rule 3-7.6(c)(6).

Accordingly, by the publication of this order we hereby reprimand attorney Walter B. Dunagan and place him on probation for six months.

The Florida Bar’s costs in this proceeding are assessed against the respondent. Judgment is entered against Walter B. Du-nagan in the amount of $1572.89, for which sum let execution issue.

It is so ordered.

McDonald, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Blackhawk Capital Group
      BDC, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Craig
      A.
      Zabala, as acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereto certifies,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:




1. The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Act of 1934; 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:  August
      11, 2006








/s/
      Craig A. Zabala


Craig
      A.
      Zabala


Acting
      Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Financial Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, 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 Blackhawk Capital Group BDC Inc. and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, 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 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141125 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141125 

 COA: 282606 

Wayne CC: 07-011146-FH 

JAMES LEON BRYANT, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 6, 2010 

judgment 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 87 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 87

    Authorizing the 2001 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
      Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

 Mr. LaTourette (for himself and Mr. Costello) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Authorizing the 2001 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law 
      Enforcement Torch Run to be run through the Capitol Grounds.

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

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF D.C. SPECIAL OLYMPICS LAW 
              ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN THROUGH CAPITOL GROUNDS.

    On June 1, 2001, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly designate, the 2001 District of Columbia Special 
Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as 
the ``event'') may be run through the Capitol Grounds as part of the 
journey of the Special Olympics torch to the District of Columbia 
Special Olympics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District 
of Columbia.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 4 of the Act of July 31, 1946 (40 
U.S.C. 193d; 60 Stat. 718), concerning sales, advertisements, displays, 
and solicitations on the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions 
applicable to the Capitol Grounds, with respect to the event.
                                 <all>
```
IV 

107TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 512

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first national elections in the Republic 

of India and commending the Government and people of India for maintaining a commitment to democracy for half a century. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 16, 2002

Mr. BROWN of Ohio (for himself and Mr. PALLONE) submitted the following 

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the first national elections in the Republic of India and commending the Government and people of India for maintaining a commitment to democracy for half a century.

Whereas in February 1952 the Republic of India held its first 

general elections for Parliament; 

Whereas 41⁄2 years earlier, in August 1947, India achieved 

independence through largely nonviolent resistance after 

centuries of living under colonial rule; 

Whereas in January 1950 India adopted a constitution, with 

many provisions influenced and inspired by the work of 

the Founding Fathers of the United States; 
2

•HCON 512 IH 

Whereas among the rights and freedoms provided to the people of India under the constitution is universal suffrage 

for all men and women over the age of 18; 

Whereas with more than 1,000,000,000 people, India is the 

world’s largest democracy; 

Whereas in the half-century since its first elections, India has 

on a regular basis held elections for governments at the 

local, regional, and national levels; 

Whereas elections in India provide voters with a choice between thousands of candidates representing a vast array 

of political parties without limitations or restrictions on 

participation; 

Whereas the election process in India is controlled by an 

independent elections commission that ensures that elections are held in a free and fair manner; 

Whereas the Department of State and a wide range of international organizations have regularly determined the elections in India to be free and fair; 

Whereas India’s most recent national parliamentary elections 

in 1999 attracted more than 600,000,000 voters; 

Whereas in February 2002, on the 50th anniversary of India’s first national elections, voters went to the polls to 

elect members of the state assemblies in four of India’s 

states, Manipur, Punjab, Uttaranchal, and Uttar 

Pradesh; and 

Whereas despite the ongoing threat of terrorism from outside 

forces, India moved forward with state assembly elections 

in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and completed the 

election process in a free and fair manner: Now, therefore, be it
3

•HCON 512 IH 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) commends the Government and people of 

4 the Republic of India for a 50-year tradition of free 

5 and fair elections and the orderly transfer of polit6 ical power; and 

7 (2) reiterates its support for continued close 

8 ties between the United States and India in the full 

9 range of issues, and, particularly, in joint efforts to 

10 promote democracy around the world.

Æ
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 75152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30582]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9763-5]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, 
EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and 
Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a policy-oriented 
committee that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations 
to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and 
policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
    The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss specific topics of 
relevance for consideration by the Committee in order to provide advice 
and insights to the Agency on environmental policies and programs that 
affect and engage agriculture and rural communities.

DATES: The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee will hold a 
public teleconference on Thursday, January 17, 2013 from 2:00 p.m. 
until 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal 
Officer, kaiser.alicia@epa.gov, 202-564-7273, US EPA, Office of the 
Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public wishing to gain access 
to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written 
statement to the FRRCC must contact Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal 
Officer, at kaiser.alicia@epa.gov or 202-564-7273 by January 4, 2013.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations please 
contact Alicia Kaiser at kaiser.alicia@epa.gov or 202-564-7273, 
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much 
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: December 7, 2012.
Alicia Kaiser,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-30582 Filed 12-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
*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. 97-30030

Summary Calendar

CLARENCE STEWART, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Middle District of Louisiana

(96-3431-A-1)

August 25, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:*

Clarence Stewart, Jr., a Louisiana prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Louisiana Department of Corrections, Warden

Burl Cain, Lt. Willie Thomas, and Sgt. Gerald Scott, alleging that they refused to
1

 See Fed.R.App.P. 4(c).

2 Robins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405 (5th Cir. 1985).

2

retrieve his radio from another inmate who had stolen it, ignored his request for

emergency medical assistance, and wrote him up for “unsanitary practice” after the

other inmate threw human waste on him. The district court dismissed the

complaint on two grounds: (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and

(2) frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

The judgment of dismissal was entered November 5, 1996. Stewart’s notice

of appeal was filed December 16, 1996. The record is devoid of any explanation

or proof why the notice of appeal, which was filed well outside the 30 days

allowed, should be deemed timely.1 The time limitation for filing a notice of

appeal is jurisdictional, and the lack of a timely notice mandates our dismissal of

the appeal.2

By virtue of this disposition, the motions filed by Stewart are mooted and

they are DENIED.

APPEAL DISMISSED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 18, 2022

NO. 03-22-00540-CV

Tzu-Chen Lin, Appellant

v.

Chuan-Ben Fu, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on August 16, 2022.

Having reviewed the record, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Appellant shall pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 22, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30336 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRANDON J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 02-CR-50076-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Brandon J. Smith pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him for being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to a 41-month term of imprisonment and to a three-year period of supervised release. The district court overruled Smith’s objection to the probation officer’s recommendation that an adjustment in offense level for acceptance of responsibility be denied because Smith had denied falsely the offense conduct. To obtain a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, a defendant must clearly demonstrate acceptanceNo. 03-30336 -2- of responsibility for his offense. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); United States v. Lghodaro , 967 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir. 1992). The defendant must truthfully admit the conduct comprising the offense of conviction. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1., comment. (n.1(a)). This court reviews a district court’s finding on acceptance of responsibility “under a standard of review even more deferential than a pure clearly erroneous standard.” United States v. Gonzales , 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted). Smith argues that he admitted his involvement in the offense at the change-of-plea hearing and at the sentencing hearing and that the district court gave too much weight to Smith’s false statements during his interview with the probation officer. Smith contends that he was merely exercising his constitutional right against self-incrimination and that he should not be punished because he believed naively that he could still proceed to trial after pleading guilty. The adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is in the nature of a reward, not a punishment, and does not unduly burden constitutional privileges. See United States v. Mourning , 914 F.2d 699, 707 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court did not clearly err in giving weight to the false statements made by Smith to the probation officer. Under the deferential standard applicable to the district court’s ruling, there is no basis for reversal. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Roebling  Financial Corp, Inc.
(the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB  for the  quarter  ended  March 31,  2007 (the
"Report")  as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof, we, Frank J. Travea,  III,  President and Chief Executive  Officer,  and
Janice A. Summers,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer,  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) 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 results of operations of the Company.


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Frank J. Travea, III                  /s/ Janice A. Summers
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
Frank J. Travea, III                      Janice A. Summers
President and Chief Executive Officer     Senior Vice President, Chief Operating
                                          Officer and Chief Financial Officer

May 11, 2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2486
NAN S. VICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus FOOTE, INCORPORATED, t/a Foote Tire, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-95-151) Submitted: November 30, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nan S. Vick, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Patrick Geary, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on her civil complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Vick v. Foote, Inc. , No. CA-95-151 (E.D. Va. Aug. 1, 1995). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

Blackwater Midstream Announces Completion of $4.2 Million Common Stock Offering
Blackwater Midstream Corp. (OTCBB:BWMS), a liquid petroleum and chemical
terminal storage company, announced today that it has completed the private
placement of approximately $4.2 million of common stock to accredited and
offshore investors. Falcon Securities (UK) Limited, a member of the London Stock
Exchange and a company regulated by the Financial Services Authority of England,
acted as placement agent.

The proceeds of the offering will be used to commence design and construction of
the first phase of a planned total of 10 million barrels of liquid petroleum
storage terminal capacity in the lower Mississippi region. Additionally,
Blackwater Midstream is pursuing the acquisition of existing terminal storage
facilities and will use a portion of the proceeds to prepare for its anticipated
listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market.

Michael Suder, CEO of Blackwater Midstream, said, "This initial investment
indicates that investors have confidence in our business strategy and management
team. We believe this offering will allow us to execute on our plans and
dramatically grow the enterprise."

Crystal Parzik
artfix media
CRYSTAL@ARTFIXMEDIA.COM