alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 11

- 00870

- CR EX PARTE JUAN GABRIE L CISNEROS From the 79th Judicial District Court , Brooks County, Texas Trial Court No. 88

- 02

- 02179

- CR Honorable Marisela Saldana , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Delivered and Filed: February 8, 2012
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION The trial court denied appellant’s application for writ of habeas corpus on July 25, 2011.
T he notice of appeal was due to be filed August 24, 2011

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(1). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on September 8, 2011

. T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 26.3. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on October 21, 2011 and he did not file a motion for extension of time. Accordingly, on December 28, 2011, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismi ssed for lack of jurisdiction. On January 23, 2012, appellant responded by stating a request for findings of fact were filed by his attorney on August 9, 2011 and, following a September 23, 2011 hearing, the trial court stated it would file findings but failed to do s o.04

- 11

- 00870

- CR

- 2

- The time in which to file a notice of appeal in a civil appeal may be extended by the timely filing of a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a)(4). However, in a criminal appeal , only the filing of a motion fo r new trial will extend a defendant’s time in which to file a notice of appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(2). Therefore, appellant’s request that the trial court enter findings of fact did not extend the deadline by which he was required to file his no tice of appeal. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH
391 A.2d 705

#### Commonwealth v. Woodward, Appellant.

Submitted March 15, 1978.

Larry E. Stone, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Marion E. MacIntyre, Second Assistant District Attorney, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
[No. 36455-3-I.

Division One.

August 12, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. S.D., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-8-06754-2, Michael Spearman, J., entered March 3, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
November 1 , 2011



### JUDGMENT



## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEVIATHAN ENTERPRISE S GROUP, INC. , Appellant

NO. 14

- 11

- 00443

- CV V.

ULYSSES W. WATKINS, FAMILY CARE MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., ARNOLD S. COHN & ASSOCIATES, P .C. AND ARAMCO INVESTMENT GROUP , Appellees

____________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment
signed by the court below on January 26, 2011. Having considered the motion and found
it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMI SSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by

LEVIATHAN ENTERPRISE S GROUP, INC.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 30, 2014

No. 04-14-00539-CV

Randall Carlton ORNDOFF,

Appellant

v.

Terri Lee ITALIAN,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 04-1876-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file brief is GRANTED. The appellant’s 

brief is due on December 1, 2014.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 30th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 77 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 77

Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the efforts of people of 
   the United States of Korean ancestry to reunite with their family 
                        members in North Korea.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 22, 2001

    Mr. Becerra (for himself and Mr. Royce) submitted the following 
     concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                        International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the sense of the Congress regarding the efforts of people of 
   the United States of Korean ancestry to reunite with their family 
                        members in North Korea.

Whereas on June 25, 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, thereby initiating 
        the Korean War, leading to the loss of countless lives, and further 
        polarizing a world engulfed by the Cold War;
Whereas in the aftermath of the Korean War, the division of the Koreas at the 
        38th parallel separated millions of Koreans from their families, tearing 
        at the heart of every mother, father, daughter, and son;
Whereas on June 13 and 14, 2000, in the first summit conference ever held 
        between leaders of North and South Korea, South Korean President Kim Dae 
        Jung met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang, North 
        Korea's capital;
Whereas in a historic joint declaration, South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and 
        North Korean leader Kim Jong Il made an important promise to promote 
        economic cooperation and hold reunions of South Korean and North Korean 
        citizens;
Whereas such reunions have been held in North and South Korea since the signing 
        of the joint declaration, reuniting family members who had not seen or 
        heard from each other for more than 50 years;
Whereas 500,000 people of the United States of Korean ancestry bear the pain of 
        being separated from their families in North Korea;
Whereas the United States values peace in the global community and has long 
        recognized the significance of uniting families torn apart by the 
        tragedy of war; and
Whereas a petition drive is taking place throughout the United States, urging 
        the United States Government to assist in the reunification efforts: 
        Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the Congress and the President should support efforts 
        to reunite people of the United States of Korean ancestry with 
        their families in North Korea; and
            (2) such efforts should be made in a timely manner, as 50 
        years have passed since the separation of these families.
                                 <all>
```
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLIANCE FOR THE WILD ROCKIES;

NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS COUNCIL,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

JANE L. COTTRELL, in her official

capacity as acting Regional Forester;

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE,

an agency of the United States Department

of Agriculture,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-35756

D.C. No. 9:09-cv-00107-DWM

O R D E R*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Donald W. Molloy, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 2, 2010

Seattle, Washington

FILED

JUN 24 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
Hon. Michael W. Mosman, United States District Judge for District of **

Oregon sitting by designation.

2

Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MOSMAN, **

 District Judge.

We reverse the order of the district court denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’

motion for a preliminary injunction.

We remand this action to the District Court for the District of Montana, with

direction to enter a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants forthwith to cease

implementation of the Rat Creek Salvage Project.

An opinion will follow in due course.
[No. 36181-3-I.

Division One.

February 18, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lori Depner, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-06238-3, Richard Jones, J., entered January 31, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Webster, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Grosse, J.
### • DEPIQflRAHSPOnWiO H 

### SERVE D FEBRUAR Y 17 , 201 0 m;v-Q ,

U.S
. DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C
IN TH E MATTE RO F 

## ALASKAJUNEA

U AERONAUTICS , INC . FA A DOCKE T No
. CP09AL000 9 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMS No
. FAA-2009-073 4
ORDE RO FDISMISSA L O n Augus t

19 , 2009 , th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (hereinafter referre dt o a s "Complainant" ) file daComplaint
. O n Augus t 18 , 2009 , Responden t

Alask aJuneau Aeronautics , Inc
. (hereinafte r "Respondent" ) ha drequeste dahearing
. O n February 2 , 2010 , Complainan t

withdre w it s Complain t

an dmove dt o terminat e th e proceedings , citin g settlemen t

o f th e matter . 1 4 C.F.R
. § 13.21 5 states : "A t an y tim e before o r

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y ma y withdra w acomplain t o r part y may withdra w areques t for ahearing withou t th e consen t

o f th e administrativ e law judge
. I f an agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

o r aparty withdraw s th e reques t for ahearing an dth e answer , th e administrativ e law judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s unde r thi s subpart with prejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dWithdrawa l o f Complain t

havin g bee n rea dan d considered , i t

i s ORDERE D a s follows : 1
. Complainant' s Withdrawa l o f Complain t

an dmotio n t o terminat e b e an d i s hereb y granted ; an d

### 2
. Thi s proceeding b e an di s hereby dismisse dwit

h prejudice
. S O ORDERED
. 

# o J^-A C 

# ii^v^ v V \jv-oiki(-^ } Richar dC
. Goodwin U.S
. Administrativ e La

w Judg e 

# ' K

Attachmen t - Servic e Lis tFA A Docke t No
. CP09AL000 9 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L i

& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W
. Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Jame s M , Waldon , Respondent' s Counse l Lan e Powel l P C Attorney s a

t Law 142 0 Fift h Avenue , Suit e 410 0 Seattle , W

A 98101-233 8 TEL : 206-223-700 0 FAX : 206-223-710 7 Glen n H
. Brown , Complainant' s Counse l Senio r Attorney , Offic e o f

th e Regiona l Counsel , AAL- 7 Alaskan Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 Wes t 7* ^ Avenue , #1 4 Anchorage , A K

99513-758 7 TEL : 907-271-526 9 FAX : 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC
. Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New Jerse y Avenue , S.E
. Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Advisor : 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistant : 202-366-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S
. Mail
. Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration

, 60 0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 ,
CUMBERLAND MEDICAL CENTER 


Ph: (931) 484-9511 421 South Main Street, Crossville TN, 38555 

J.lIy 5, 2011 

canters for Medicare & 


Medicaid Sarvices, Department of 


Health and Human ::ervices, Attention: 


011 S-1436-P 


P.o. Box 8013, 


Baltimore, MD21244-8013 


To 'Whom It May ilincern, 

I wanted to share with you my appreciation of your reconsideration on the final rule referring to 

physidan signature requirement on requisitions, file code 0IIS-1436-P. I whole heartily cg-ee that the 

propos:x:l rule reinstate the prior policy that "the signature of a physidan or qualified non-physidan 

practitioner is not required on a requisition for Medicare purpos:x:l for a dinical diagnostic laboratory , 

test paid under the Q.FS' . Implementation of the current rule is impossible to negotiate. R1ysidans are 

not available 2417 to obtain a signature on a requisition. lhiswould result in un-necessary delays in 

patient treatment. For all the reas:>nsstated inthe Federal Fegister, Vol. 76, No. 126/lhursday, JJne 

30, 2011, the new pro~ rule must take place. 

lhankyou, 

404-1d~~ Carolyn W. Snith, MT (AS:P) 


Administrative [lredor of Laboratory 


OJmberland Medical center 


421 S Main Sreet 


O"ossville, IN 38555 


931-459-7165 

"Quality Care Delivered By Quality Professionals" 

www.cmchealthcare.org
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO



18 U.S.C. 1350



(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the Annual Report
of Games & Esports Experience Acquisition Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Ari Segal, Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as added by §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; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|                     |     |                                                       
|-------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 31, 2022 | By: | /s/ Ari Segal                                         
|                     |     | Ari Segal                                             
|                     |     | Chief Executive Officer
 (Principal Financial Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE>       5


<S>                                        <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                          316,871
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 1,372,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                    235,000
<INVENTORY>                                      94,718
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              2,053,044
<PP&E>                                           20,659
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                2,091,788
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,531,395
<BONDS>                                       1,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (969,607)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  2,091,788
<SALES>                                       6,937,625
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6,937,625
<CGS>                                         5,312,546
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 5,312,546
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              965,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,978,523)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,978,523)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (38,084)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (2,016,607)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (.67)



</TABLE>
----

Ex

| 1. | The quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. for the three months ended June 30, 2009 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”); and |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grande Communications Holdings, Inc. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 13, 2009 |   | /s/  ROY H. CHESTNUTT                                           |
|-----------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                  |   | Roy H. Chestnutt                                                          |
|                  |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors |

|                  |   |                              |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| Date: August 13, 2009 |   | /s/  MICHAEL L. WILFLEY |
|                  |   | Michael L. Wilfley                |
|                  |   | Chief Financial Officer           |

----
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEJANDRO ROJAS JIMENEZ,

Petitioner,

 v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney

General,

Respondent.

No. 21-1284

Agency No. A216-434-326

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted May 10, 2023** 

San Francisco, California

Before: S.R. THOMAS, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Alejandro Rojas Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision dismissing his appeal

from an Immigration Judge (“IJ”)’s decision that declined to terminate removal

proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Where, as here,

FILED

MAY 12 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the BIA issues its own opinion, this Court reviews “only the BIA’s decision,

except to the extent that it expressly adopts the IJ’s opinion.” Flores-Lopez v.

Holder, 685 F.3d 857, 861 (9th Cir. 2012). Because the parties are familiar with

the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it here. We

deny the petition for review.

The BIA’s sole basis for dismissing Rojas Jimenez’s appeal was that he

conceded removability through his counsel. Rojas Jimenez does not contest this in

his petition for review or contend that the BIA was incorrect in its holding. 

Accordingly, he has waived any argument challenging the BIA’s decision. See

Escobar Santos v. Garland, 4 F.4th 762, 764 n.1 (9th Cir. 2021) (arguments not

raised in petitioner’s opening brief are waived). 

PETITION DENIED.

2
#### Doyle Max WILSON, Plaintiff v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Defendant.

No. 17596.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 5, 1981.

*530A. Eugene Hancock, New Albany, Ind., for plaintiff.

Floyd G. Astin, K. Allan Zabel, Salt Lake City, for defendant.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff seeks review of the Industrial Commission’s denial of unemployment compensation for a period of six weeks. The Commission’s denial was based upon its finding that plaintiff did not have good cause for terminating his employment.

Upon review, plaintiff claims that he terminated his employment upon religious grounds and the denial of benefits violates his constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. The record however discloses that plaintiff’s intent was to move to Indiana to be closer to a larger number of persons practicing his religion and had planned such move “... for some time.” In addition, plaintiff’s own testimony was that there existed nothing at his work that proscribed or jeopardized his individual religious beliefs. In fact, plaintiff’s co-workers were described as “good guys” and his feeling was something “... I felt inside myself.”

This factual situation is different from those cases in which an employee is called upon, as a condition of his employment, to violate a basic precept of his religious beliefs.1 Here, while plaintiff may have felt uncomfortable in his surroundings, we are unable to conclude that there existed anything that impinged upon plaintiff’s freedom of religion.

Further, there seems sufficient evidence to support the Commission’s findings regarding the lack of good cause for plaintiff’s voluntary termination and this Court is precluded from disturbing such findings.2 Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

1

. *Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division,*450 U.S. 707, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981); *Sherbert v. Verner,*374 U.S. 398, 83 S.Ct. 1790, 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963); and *Abington School District v. Schempp,*374 U.S. 203, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963).

2

. U.C.A., 1953, 35-4-10(i).
*[No. 35388-8-I.*

Division One.

August 26, 1996.]

#### Mortgage Investments, Inc., *Respondent,*v. Wes Uhlman, et al., *Appellants,*Property Management Services, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 92-2-24097-1, Michael J. Fox, J., entered September 13, 1994. *Affirmed in part*and *reversed in part*by unpublished opinion per Kennedy, J., concurred in by Baker, C.J., and Agid, J.
EXHIBIT
32.1







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
on Form 10-Q of Vivid Learning Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter
ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew J. Hammer, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, 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 my
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 operations of the
      Company.





Dated:  February
      12, 2009
                /s/ Matthew J. HammerMatthew
      J. HammerChief
      Executive Officer