alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas ALLEY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Frederick KAL, Presiding Judge, Steven Fisher, Judge, Aurora Municipal Court, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 80CA0311.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Aug. 7, 1980.

No appearance for petitioner-appellee.

Claybourne M. Douglas, Asst. City Atty., Aurora, for respondents-appellants.

COYTE, Judge.

Respondents appeal the order of the district court directing respondents to dismiss the battery charge pending against petitioner. We reverse.

On May 25, 1979, petitioner was arraigned in municipal court, entered a plea of not guilty, and requested a pretrial conference. The conference was set for July 17, 1979, but was held three days later. At that time, the prosecuting attorney offered, and petitioner accepted, a deferred judgment subject to two conditions. Disposition of the case was continued until August 13, 1979, to provide petitioner time to satisfy the conditions. On August 13,1979, disposition was continued until August 21,1979, at which time petitioner was unable to meet the conditions of the agreement. Trial was set for October 26, 1979.

Prior to trial, petitioner moved to dismiss the charge, asserting that the trial date was *192more than 90 days after the arraignment date. *See*C.M.C.R. 248(b) (1979 Supp.). The municipal court denied petitioner’s motion, finding that petitioner had requested the pretrial procedure, and thus, had precipitated the delay.

Petitioner sought relief in the district court in the nature of a mandamus writ directing the municipal court to dismiss the pending charge. Finding that petitioner had not expressly waived his speedy trial right under C.M.C.R. 248(b) (1979 Supp.) and that the request for a pretrial conference did not affirmatively demonstrate a waiver, the court granted the requested relief. This was error.

C.M.C.R. 248(b) (1979 Supp.) provides in pertinent part:

> “If the trial of a defendant is delayed more than ninety days after the arraignment of the defendant, or unless the delay is occasioned by the action or request of the defendant, the court may dismiss the case and the defendant shall not thereafter be tried for the same offense

Here, since petitioner requested the pretrial conference for the purpose of achieving a disposition of his case without going to trial, and agreed to the terms of the disposition, petitioner may not complain of the delay occasioned by his unsuccessful efforts to meet the conditions for disposition. *Cf. Maynes v. People,*178 Colo. 88, 495 P.2d 551 (1972). For the purpose of determining compliance with C.M.C.R. 248(b), (1979 Supp.), the delay from May 25, 1979, to July 17, 1979, and from July 20, 1979, to August 13, 1979, were “occasioned by” petitioner’s action and are excluded from the determination of the 90 day period. Therefore, petitioner’s October 26, 1979, trial date did not violate C.M.C.R 248(b) (1979 Supp.).

The order of the district court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court with directions to remand to the municipal court for reinstatement of the complaint.

PIERCE and RULAND, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
EXHIBIT 27 (A)


This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the Company
10-KSB for the year  ended May 31,  1999 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                          1,000

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                              MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                                   MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                                                  113
<SECURITIES>                                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                         2,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                                             47
<INVENTORY>                                                           5,842
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                      9,653
<PP&E>                                                               13,569
<DEPRECIATION>                                                        7,652
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                       17,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 6,369
<BONDS>                                                               8,266
<COMMON>                                                              1,189
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                                              922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                         17,237
<SALES>                                                              13,710
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     13,710
<CGS>                                                                 9,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                         3,655
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                       (198)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                      693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         389
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            (20)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                     409
<DISCONTINUED>                                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                                            409
<EPS-BASIC>                                                           .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           .12


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 4, 2018

No. 04-18-00080-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.J.M. AND A.R.P., CHILDREN,

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-00429

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating appellant’s parental 

rights. Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on March 13, 2018. Because neither the 

brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed by the deadline, this court issued an order on 

March 20, 2018, ordering appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for want of prosecution. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). On April 2, 2018, appellant filed a 

written response to this court’s order requesting an extension of time to file the brief. The 

motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed no later than April 23, 2018, and must 

comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure which sets forth the required 

content of an appellant’s brief. Because this is an accelerated appeal, further requests for 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

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

court on this 4th day of April, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-21069

Summary Calendar

 

HENRY LEE CURTIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; WAYNE

SCOTT; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH HOSPITAL;

HARTMAN, DR.; COUGHIN, DR.; LALLATTRANS, DR.; DAVID

LE; JESSE FRANKLIN; ESTELLE UNIT; TEXAS COMMISSION 

FOR THE BLIND,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-3629

- - - - - - - - - -

May 29, 2001

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Henry Lee Curtis, a Texas prisoner (# 555628), appeals the

district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil

rights action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) and following a hearing pursuant to

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). 

Curtis has failed to challenge the magistrate judge’s

conclusion that any claims concerning the period prior to
No. 00-21069

-2-

September 30, 1997–-two years before he submitted his complaint

for mailing–-were barred by the applicable two-year Texas statute

of limitations for personal injury. See Brinkmann v. Dallas

County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987);

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 251 (1989); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.

CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (West 1999). 

As for his claims concerning the period after September 30,

1997, Curtis has failed to show that the district court abused

its discretion in concluding that those claims were frivolous. 

Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). Although

Curtis has apparently become blind since entering the Texas

prison system, he has failed to set forth allegations suggesting

that any of the named defendants were deliberately indifferent to

his serious medical needs during the relevant period. See

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104-06 (1976). 

The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in

failing to appoint Curtis an attorney. See Cupit v. Jones, 835

F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987).

The district court’s dismissal of Curtis’ complaint counts

as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Curtis

that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in

forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(g). 

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Harpreet S. Sangha, the Chief Executive Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., and Antonia Bold-de-Haughton, the Chief Financial Officer of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., each 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 their knowledge, the Report on Form 10-QSB of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc., for the quarterly period ended February 28, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Douglas Lake Minerals Inc.

Date:     April 19, 2007.

| | /s/ Harpreet S. Sangha                                                                                             
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Harpreet S. Sangha
President, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer and a director                  
| | /s/ Antonia Bold-de-Haughton                                                                                       
| | Antonia Bold-de-Haughton
Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and a director

__________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets, the Consolidated Statement of Operations and the
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,597,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               24,795,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,352,411
<INVENTORY>                                 31,460,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            60,545,651
<PP&E>                                      33,166,940
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,730,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              77,848,140
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,169,102
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,537,211
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,454,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                77,848,140
<SALES>                                    106,695,874
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           106,695,874
<CGS>                                       70,343,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               70,343,837
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            27,955,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             2,039,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,423,650
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,933,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                   845,044
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,168,061
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (282,303)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   885,758
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .27
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex Parte Tulio Wilfredo Escobar

Appellate case number: 01-15-00154-CR

Trial court case number: 1329944-A

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court on March 5, 2015. In the abatement 

order, we directed the trial court to execute a certification of appellant’s right to appeal indicating 

whether or not appellant has the right to appeal and enter findings of fact and conclusions of law 

in conjunction with the denial of appellant’s application for a writ of habeas corpus. On March 

19, 2015, the trial court clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s findings 

of fact and conclusions of law. On March 22, 2015, the court reporter filed a reporter’s record of 

the March 19, 2015 abatement hearing. That record reflects that appellant has a right to appeal 

and the trial court would sign a certification of appellant’s right to appeal. Accordingly, we 

REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

We direct the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

certification of appellant’s right to appeal, signed on March 19, 2015, no later than 14 days 

from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 9, 2015
ACCEPTED03-14-00313-CR4836883THIRD COURT OF APPEALSAUSTIN, TEXAS4/10/2015 8:49:28 AMJEFFREY D. KYLECLERK
**For fastest processing, please attach this form and a PDF shipping label in an email to DairySanitaryCerts@ams.usda.gov.

DA-245 (01/2013)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.  (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
##### 



AMENDMENT NO. 2
TO THE
SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.
PARTNER AGENT PROGRAM AGREEMENT
   1.
    
    The following provision shall be added under Section IX. General Provisions:
  2.
    
    The word treaty shall be deleted from Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1, Line 1.3.
    
    The following clause shall be deleted in its entirety from Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1,
Line 1.:
  4.
    
    Exhibit B, Legend, Table 1, Line 15. shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:




---



##### 



5.
    
    The following sentence shall be deleted in its entirety from Exhibit B, Other Defined
Terms used in this Agreement, Paragraph B:
 st st st st
    SPECIALTY UNDERWRITERS ALLIANCE, INC.BY: 
NAME:
    
    /s/ William S. Loder

William S. LoderTITLE:
    
    Senior Vice President, Chief Underwriting OfficerAPPALACHIAN UNDERWRITERS, INC.BY: 
NAME:
    
    /s/ Robert J. Arowood

Robert J. ArowoodTITLE:
    
    President
U. S. Department of Agriculture

Agricultural Marketing Service

NOTICE OF SALE OF COTTON

FOR RELEASE AT 12:00 P.M. CT April 13, 2021 

USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service today announced the sale of Cotton. The cotton bales were sold under 

the SEAM dated April 12, 2021. 

The following cotton offers were 

sold using the SEAM:

Offer No. Catalog Location Pounds 

Sold Bales Sold

Price Sold 

(per 

Pound)

CCC Revenue 

TS1104279 SWEETWATER,TX 120,252 236 0.6925 $83,274.51

120,252 236 $83,274.51
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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

March 15, 2013

jam

Order 

March 15, 2013

146796 (21)

KENNETH UNCAPHER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 146796

COA: 310630

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $66.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court.

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$309.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 76 (Thursday, April 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9420]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council 
(Council) was established by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 
Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 93-320) (Act) to receive reports and advise 
Federal agencies on implementing the Act. In accordance with the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Bureau of Reclamation announces 
that the Council will meet as detailed below. The meeting of the 
Council is open to the public.

DATES: The Council will convene the meeting on Thursday, May 17, 2012, 
at 1 p.m. and recess at approximately 5 p.m. The Council will reconvene 
the meeting on Friday, May 18, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. and adjourn the 
meeting at approximately 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Homestead Resort, 700 North 
Homestead Drive, Midway, Utah 84049. Send written comments to Mr. Kib 
Jacobson, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, 125 
South State Street, Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1147; 
telephone (801) 524-3753; facsimile (801) 524-3826; email at: 
[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kib Jacobson, telephone (801) 524-
3753; facsimile (801) 524-3826; email at: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any member of the public may file written 
statements with the Council before, during, or up to 30 days after the 
meeting either in person or by mail. To the extent that time permits, 
the Council chairman will allow public presentation of oral comments at 
the meeting. To allow full consideration of information by Council 
members, written notice must be provided at least 5 days prior to the 
meeting. Any written comments received prior to the meeting will be 
provided to Council members at the meeting.
    The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss and take appropriate 
actions regarding the following: (1) The Basin States Program created 
by Public Law 110-246, which amended the Act; (2) responses to the 
Council Report; and (3) other items within the jurisdiction of the 
Council.

Public Disclosure

    Before including your name, address, telephone number, email 
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you 
should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time. 
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.

    Dated: April 12, 2012.
Larry Walkoviak,
Regional Director, Upper Colorado Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-9420 Filed 4-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P
```