alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00474-CR

Christina Lyons, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. CR-11-0101, HONORABLE WILLIAM HENRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

We issued our opinion in this cause on February 26, 2015. Counsel for appellant

moved for, and we granted, an extension of the deadline to file a motion for rehearing (originally

March 13, 2015) until thirty-three days thereafter, April 15, 2015. During the evening hours of 1

April 14, 2015, the date immediately prior to the extended deadline, counsel filed a second extension

motion requesting an additional thirty days, or until May 15, 2015.

While this Court is typically fairly generous in exercising its discretion to grant

briefing extensions, we cannot overlook the prologue to counsel’s now-multiple extension

requests on rehearing: On original submission, counsel obtained five extensions of the deadline to

file appellant’s brief, totaling 160 days. Moreover, after this Court granted counsel’s fifth extension

See Tex. R. App. P. 49.1 (providing 15-day deadline for filing motion for rehearing), 49.8 1

(affording discretion to courts of appeals to extend the deadline). 
motion, accompanied by an order instructing him that no further extensions would be granted,

counsel still failed to file the brief by the specified deadline and instead merely advised the Court

that he would file the brief “as soon as possible.” Counsel ultimately did not file the brief until

twenty days after the ordered deadline. Rather than take additional action that would further delay

the submission of the cause, this Court accepted the untimely brief.

Given this history and the delays that prior extensions have already caused, we will

grant one final extension and ORDER counsel to file any motion for rehearing on appellant’s behalf

no later than Monday, May 18, 2015. No further extensions will be granted, nor will any late filings

be accepted.

It is ordered on April 17, 2015.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Puryear and Pemberton

Do Not Publish

2
#### Abby Visco, Plaintiff, *v.*Robert Visco, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Bronx County,

March 17, 1959.

*Freeman $ Hyman*for defendant appearing specially.

*Resnick, Barr & Resnick*for plaintiff.

George Tilzer, J.

Motion to vacate an order of sequestration

and to direct the receiver to turn over the assets taken into her possession and to account therefor is denied. The defendant appears speciaHy and contends that since he was not served personally with the summons and complaint and since the service by publication was not commenced until more than 30 days after the order of sequestration, the order must be vacated. The Court of Appeals, in construing the constitutionality of section 1171-a of the Civil Practice Act, in *Matthews*v. *Matthews*(240 N. Y. 28, 33), stated: “ This section recognizes and must be read in connection with the other provisions of the act which provide that where the defendant is a nonresident or conceals himself so that he cannot be found within the State, service may be made upon him by publication. (Civ. Prac. Act, sec. 232, subd. 5.) In that case an order of sequestration .may be made but the service of the summons by publication must be com*398menced *at once or within a reasonable time.”*(Emphasis supplied.)

While it is true that service by publication where a warrant of attachment has been issued must be commenced within 30 days (Civ. Prac. Act, § 905), and sequestration has been held to be similar in nature to attachment proceedings *(Matthews*v. *Matthews, supra),*in the absence of a definite statutory time within which to commence the proceeding pursuant to section 1171-a of the Civil Practice Act, the court is of the opinion that the publication herein must be commenced within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the court finds that although the publication was commenced after 30 days, on the facts of this case the publication was commenced within a reasonable time and therefore the motion cannot be granted.
Exhibit 10.5


 






Amendment to Xplore Technologies Corp. 2009 Stock Incentive Plan







This Amendment to the Xplore Technologies Corp. 2009 Stock Incentive Plan is effective as of July 3, 2018.







WHEREAS, the Board has determined to increase the number of shares of common stock relating to awards under the Company’s 2009 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) that any single participant may receive in any calendar year from Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) to Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (750,000).


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:







1. Pursuant to Section 18(b) of the Plan, Section 5(b) of the Plan is hereby amended to increase the number of shares of common stock relating to Awards (as defined in the Plan) that any single participant may receive in any calendar year from Five Hundred Thousand (500,000) to Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand (750,000).







2. Except as amended hereby, the terms and conditions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.







	 	
XPLORE TECHNOLOGIES CORP.


	 	
 


 



By: /s/ Tom Wilkinson                                


 


Name: Tom Wilkinson 


 


Title: Chief Executive Officer
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

tionorabls

D. W. Burkhaltnr County **Attmney** Throakmerton County Box 

### 953

‘Ehroekmorton, Texar Dear Sir!

IS each day in prebafeEionorable D. V. Rurkhaltar, paG6 3


### tr, be pala for u0h 

### dsp that the shsrirr or his deputy shall a!.LOlld raid oourt. MO par aian **should ba**  **siloma** where thsr6 **16 no**  suoh **atten** dense @van though the oowt my bs fn o8oolon 

### ma Is 

### prroralng its vnrlouo duties wham the 00wt i8 **rclq~i+d to**  **pm0ri9i many**  **ru00ticrtr0 tiera**  the lttandauer **of** tho eharlff **or** hi6 **deputy** 16 

### not ndloooaery. Zt murt 

### be borne lo tid that 

### etstutu **parmittl8g** cronpmaatlai to pub110 ofrlolale 

### rarst

be ~trlotly oomtruad and It is a 

### 8dak.a

p olity or the l qgkto not 

### to

psrmlb 

### the pp~nt 

### 0r ru0 02 0th~ 

## rcpm 0r oomponoatlon, IXI~,OUS

t&e othutes s~olfloally and olsuly authorlrs tha 86m6.” The sh8rlff la entitlad to 6 

### lnpt or the not168 under Artiole 3991. 

## $i.oc r0e **r0r** .th8 p08tYou are re8pemtfull.y advlood that it ia the opinion
or this dapartment 

### that3hs oharlrt 09 Throokmorton County la entgtlad to #4.00 par’day for 6a6h day ha lo eatually ln attendanos upof~ths qotlrt, aa the ob6tuts 

### 8~et3irleo tfifit this mm 

### IS to be gaid 

### r0r sach **day** test the 

## 0hdrr **Or hi4**  deputy ohall ettlad’tha. **dietriot or**  **OoUtdiy 00-t.**  **stataq.** airrsrsntly, She shsrirr to entitloa to $4.00 ror esoh &ey ha 18 aotu6llyin attendan u an the 6owt. Es would not be antltlad to suoh~oo6ipen6at E on where he is not in attendsma uv6n thou&~ths 

### court majl**be** 

### in oeooion an4 LB perXormlng lto vsrloao duties uher6 tha aowt IO r6- q’ulraa to parrorm sung iuaotlona where ths attadaa~n~f the sharlrr or hi8 daputy la not nsouooary. would not 

### be antltlsd to $It,OOror U&I day t&t the tied.- ninlstratim la pending or the aourt lo in sa6sloa, **but** would **ba** antltlad,only to $4.00 for 6a6h **day** In aotwl attsiidanoo upon ths oowt 88 otatsd in th6 Opini~O, portions oi whlah are quo- above, YOWP vew trala.

BY Ao6lstaat

Ap~rovsd Opinion Comczlt @e By B. 3. I+. Chelirioan
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 In connection with the Quarterly Report of T-3 Energy Services, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael T. Mino, Corporate Controller of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003,
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)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ MICHAEL T. MINOMichael T. Mino
Corporate ControllerJuly 30, 2004 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to T-3 Energy Services, Inc. and will be retained by T-3 Energy
Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
**Union
      Electric Company**
      **Computation
      Of Ratio Of Earnings To Fixed Charges And Preferred Stock Dividend
      Requirements**
      **(Thousands
      of Dollars, Except Ratios)****Year
      Ended December 31,****2000**
    
    **2001**
    
    **2002**
    
    **2003**
    
    **2004**Net
      Income
    
    $
    353,011
    
    $
    373,836
    
    $
    343,742
    
    $
    446,475
    
    $
    378,670Add-
      Extraordinary items net of tax
    
    
    -
    
    
    4,848
    
    
    -
    
    
    -
    
    
    -Net
      income from continuing operations
    
    
    353,011
    
    
    378,684
    
    
    343,742
    
    
    446,475
    
    
    378,670Taxes
      based on income
    
    
    224,149
    
    
    229,599
    
    
    193,330
    
    
    250,669
    
    
    207,641Net
      income before income taxes
    
    
    577,160
    
    
    608,283
    
    
    537,072
    
    
    697,144
    
    
    586,311Add-
      fixed charges:Interest
      on long term debt
    
    
    121,763
    
    
    108,768
    
    
    97,788
    
    
    92,821
    
    
    91,621Other
      interest
    
    
    4,219
    
    
    4,017
    
    
    7,084
    
    
    11,878
    
    
    11,717Estimated
      interest cost within rental expense
    
    
    3,928
    
    
    3,576
    
    
    2,852
    
    
    2,771
    
    
    2,790Amortization
      of net debt premium, discount,expenses
      and losses
    
    
    3,300
    
    
    3,282
    
    
    3,530
    
    
    4,170
    
    
    5,168Total
      fixed charges
    
    
    133,210
    
    
    119,643
    
    
    111,254
    
    
    111,640
    
    
    111,296Earnings
      available for fixed charges
    
    $
    710,370
    
    $
    727,926
    
    $
    648,326
    
    $
    808,784
    
    $
    697,607Ratio
      of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    5.33
    
    
    6.08
    
    
    5.82
    
    
    7.24
    
    
    6.26Earnings
      required for preferred dividends:Preferred
      stock dividends
    
    
    8,817
    
    
    8,817
    
    
    7,683
    
    
    5,941
    
    
    5,941Adjustment
      to pre-tax basis
    
    
    4,439
    
    
    4,299
    
    
    3,297
    
    
    2,959
    
    
    2,89113,256
    
    
    13,116
    
    
    10,980
    
    
    8,900
    
    
    8,832Fixed
      charges plus preferred stock dividendrequirements
    
    $
    146,466
    
    $
    132,759
    
    $
    122,234
    
    $
    120,540
    
    $
    120,128Ratio
      of earnings to fixed charges pluspreferred
      stock dividend requirements
    
    
    4.85
    
    
    5.48
    
    
    5.30
    
    
    6.70
    
    
    5.80
Comment Info: ================= General Comment:Global Business Travel Association, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection
#### State v. Kanakanui

17610

4/12/96

Affirmed
----

| 1.  | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ARI Network Services, Inc. (the “Company”); |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Kenneth S. Folberg  |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Kenneth S. Folberg      |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

----
#### Labayog v. Labayog; Estate of Labayog, In re

16096, 16310

10/21/96

Granted

83 Hawai'i 412, 927 P.2d 420
EXHIBIT 31

           CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO RULES 13A-14 AND 15D-14 OF THE
      SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Gregory Ofiesh, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB of  Franklin  Lake
Resources Inc.:

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or cause such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
     including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
     within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
     quarterly report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
     controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
     the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
     of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and


Dated:  September 14, 2004

                                               By: /s/  Fr. Gregory Ofiesh
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Fr. Gregory Ofiesh
                                               President and CEO,
                                               Acting Chief Financial Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Agricultural Marketing Service

          - [Doc. No. AMS-TM-23-0076]

# AGENCY:

Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of availability; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         of November 20, 2023, concerning the availability of the Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the Organic Market Development Grant Program (OMDG) for public review and comments. The notice contained an incorrect link to the Draft PEA.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Betsy Rakola, Associate Deputy Administrator, Transportation and Marketing Program; Telephone: (202)-690-1300; Email:                         *OMDG@usda.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of November 20, 2023, in FR Doc. 2023-20564, on page 80688, in the second column, in the third paragraph, correct the program website address where the Draft PEA is available for online review to read “                    *https://www.ams.usda.gov/​services/​grants/​omdg.*                    ”                

Erin Morris,

Associate Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.

[FR Doc. 2023-26061 Filed 11-21-23; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE P
# C_2016202EN.01019001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/190 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/190

---

Article 330

(ex Articles 27a to 27e, 40 to 40b and 43 to 45 TEU and ex Articles 11 and 11a TEC)

(ex Articles 27a

e

b

a

All members of the Council may participate in its deliberations, but only members of the Council representing the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation shall take part in the vote.

Unanimity shall be constituted by the votes of the representatives of the participating Member States only.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3).

---
April 24, 2008

28405

#### K.W., In re

Affirmed
10238

#### Seadler v. Bryan

Dismissed
* 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. 98-40634

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOE MENDOZA-BARCENAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. B-98-CR-95-1

- - - - - - - - - -

April 16, 1999

Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Mendoza-Barcenas appeals from his conviction for illegal

reentry following deportation in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

He argues that the record is insufficient to establish that he

knowingly and voluntarily waived his constitutional rights when

he pleaded guilty. Mendoza-Barcenas has not identified any error

on the part of the district court with regard to his guilty plea. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Jhd^Ljl

/nami^M- ^7?2^o9

jC^nt

-^nMJ^

tMstj^J^ -'/wis at jt

/W;(/m£ex ' j& ^JscSrtr ^Amit yC/^r /w&

inj&_

Va Kle.ii/ ^cJn/rret*?

"OZkkn ~Gt/rk*79iXto

lh r^ ,/\/^s^a-^

jr,~hw- t

Qdrrmgion Kjfilf t Irry I* <ri \?t Uft/j' r tj/ , j

\,lti-pj/*7-0l

fVBW

APR 20 2015

Bte,Ctef
#### Doe, In re

22437

08/09/2001

Affirmed
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 15 -1475V Filed: April 22, 2016 Unpublished

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LAURIE SIMMON, * * Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

* Influenza Vaccination; * Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine SECRETARY OF HEALTH * Administration (“SIRVA”); AND HUMAN SERVICES, * Special Processing Unit (“SPU”) * Respondent. *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Ronald Homer, Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan, P.C., Boston, MA, for petitioner. Debra Begley

, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey

, Chief Special Master:

On December 7, 2015

, Laurie Simmon (“petitioner”) filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq., 2 (the “Vaccine Act” or “Program”) . Petitioner alleges that s he suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration ( “ SIRVA ” ) as a result of receiving the influenza vaccine on September 24, 2014. Petition at 1. Petitioner further alleges that s he has suffered the residual effects of her injury for more than six months and that no lawsuit has been filed or settlement accepted by herself or anyone else for her injuries

. Id. at ¶¶ 16

- 17

. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On April 21, 2016

, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amende d at 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, the undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012). v.2

at 1 . Specifically, respondent indicates that she “ believes that the alleged injury is consistent SIRVA that was caused by the administration of petitioner’s flu vaccination

. ” Id. at 3

. R espondent further indicates that “ petitioner meets the statutory requirements by suffering the condition for more than six months . . . [and] has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensat ion under the Vaccine Act

. ” I d. (citations omitted )

. In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, I find that petitioner is entitle d to compensation

.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
October 20, 2003

24870

#### State v. Young

Affirmed