alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 6, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00318

- CV

Leticia R. BENAVIDES

, Appellant

v.

Cristina B. ALEXANDER as permanent guardian of the person of Carlos Y. Benavides, Jr., et

al.,

Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVQ

- 000161

- D1

Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Just ice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

This appeal was originally set for formal submission and oral argument on

September 23, 2021 at 2:00 P.M. before a panel consisting of Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and Justice Beth Watkins. On its

own motion, the panel WITHDRAWS this submission date and ORDERS this

cause set for formal submission and oral argument be fore this court on September

16, 2021 at 2:00 P.M., before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Rebeca C.

Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and Justice Beth Watkins.

In accordance with the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders in

respons e to the COVID

- 19 pandemic, the oral argument will be held through the

Fourth Court of Appeals’ Zoom license.

Counsel will receive a separate e

- mail that will contain a link for the oral

argument. Counsel are admonished as follows:1. The link to Zoom is only for counsel presenting argument and is not to

be shared with any other person. Counsel will need a computer or other

electronic device with a camera, a microphone, and access to the Internet. If

counsel intends to pre sent any exhibits during oral argument, any such exhibits

must be electronically filed by noon on the day before argument.

2. The argument will be live streamed to the Court’s YouTube channel for

the benefit of the public. The argument can be accessed using the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiaWJQ7eW5OQIALdyLN6s

3A

3. Counsel are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the Zoom

platform. The Clerk of the Court will contact counsel no later than the week

before argument to verify connectivity and equipment.

4. Counsel must wear court

- appropriate attire and choo se an appropriate

background.

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for

appellant’s opening argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten

minutes for appellant’s rebuttal argument. If any participant’s link is

disconnected during argument, timing of the argument will stop until the

participant is able to reconnect.

If either party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify

this court in writing within seven days of receiving th is notice.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

______ ____________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S6540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                 HONORING TECHNICAL SERGEANT BRIAN BELL

 Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I 
rise today to pay tribute to the life of Technical SGT Brian A. Bell, 
who died at the age of 54 at his home in Brookfield, NH on August 5. 
Brian served his country bravely for 29 years in both the 157th Air 
Refueling Wing of the New Hampshire Air National Guard, and in the 
United States Navy, deploying to Kuwait in 2005 and 2011.
  Besides his love of country, Brian was best known for his deep 
devotion to his family and friends. He appreciated the small things in 
life such as going to concerts with his wife, heading out on fishing or 
hiking trips and going kayaking. He took so much joy in being a 
grandfather to his two grandchildren, James and Jocelyne.
  Brian dedicated more than half of his life to defending our Nation, a 
devotion matched by his loyalty to his community. People who knew Brian 
say he was always willing to lend a helping hand when it was needed. 
His friends and loved ones knew him as a man driven by a fierce 
determination to defend the freedom we hold dear as Americans. Our 
country is better off today because of his efforts.
  Today and every day, Americans like Brian heed the call to defend 
this great nation. They offer their service so we may live freely and 
securely. I hope that, even at this challenging time, Brian's family 
can find comfort in knowing that we share a deep appreciation for his 
life in the service of others.
  Brian is survived by his loving wife Christine, daughter Natasha 
Nemetz, mother Helen Sue Bickford, brother James D. Bell, III, sister 
Rosanne Combs, and his beloved grandchildren. He will be loved and 
missed by all.
  I ask my colleagues and all Americans to please join me in honoring 
the life and service of Technical SGT Brian A. Bell.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           9,162
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  100,336
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (3,775)
<INVENTORY>                                     85,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,220
<PP&E>                                         179,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,291
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 405,747
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          110,446
<BONDS>                                         74,175
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           245
<OTHER-SE>                                     179,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   405,747
<SALES>                                        451,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,191
<CGS>                                          274,244
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  274,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               131,133
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,073
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,075
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,941
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             23,349
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .96
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
     
<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
balance sheets and statements of operations found on pages F-2 and F-3 of the
Company's Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          41,743
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    141,565
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               187,190
<PP&E>                                          87,451
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,194
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          206,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           750
<OTHER-SE>                                    (147,699)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,194
<SALES>                                         71,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                71,461
<CGS>                                           48,121
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  511,179
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,505
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (309,944)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (309,944)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (309,944)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.2**




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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Blast Energy Services,
      Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John
      MacDonald, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting 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:




(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.




Date:
      August 14, 2007





By:
            /s/
                John MacDonaldJohn
                MacDonaldChief
                Financial OfficerPrincipal
                Accounting Officer
ABRAHAM W. MIGUEL-LOPEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-3208

_____________________________/

Opinion filed June 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael Jones, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, KELSEY, and JAY, JJ., CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT


To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
      of The Bank of Sussex and Surry

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of The Bank of
Sussex and Surry and subsidiary as of December 31, 1995, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the
year then ended. These consolidated financial statements are the responsibility
of the Bank's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these
consolidated financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable
assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of The Bank of Sussex and Surry and
subsidiary as of December 31, 1995, and the results of their operations and
their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Richmond, Virginia
January 12, 1996

(January 25, 1996 as to Note 11)
---

---

EXHIBIT 8.1

The following table sets forth a list
of our subsidiaries.

|Name of subsidiary              | Jurisdiction of incorporation
|------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Elbit Vision Systems US, Inc.  | Delaware                     
|Elbit Vision Systems B.V.      | Holland                      
|Yuravision Co. Ltd.*            | South Korea                  
|IRT ScanMaster Systems  Inc.    | United States                
|ScanMaster Systems (IRT) Ltd.  | Israel                       

 Wholly-owned

* We hold 51.11% of the issued and
outstanding share capital of Yuravision, and have a legal obligation to purchase an
additional 18.8% from Yuravision's former shareholders.



---

---
**EXHIBIT
32.2**


**CERTIFICATION
OF VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE**


CALLISTO
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2005 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I am the
Vice President, Finance of Callisto Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in connection with
the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 and filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Form 10-Q").





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:
August 8, 2005
 
 By:
    /s/ Bernard
      F. DenoyerBernard
      F. Denoyer
      Vice
      President, Finance
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. §1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the quarterly report of Lawson Software, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John J. Coughlan, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/ JOHN J. COUGHLANJohn J. Coughlan President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | October 9, 2003                                                           

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

---

QuickLinks
Final Notes July 9 , 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Total Phosphorus EPA Method 365.1 (19 93 ) ( Semi

- Automated Colorimetry )

1. H igh iron concentrations can cause phosphorus to precipitate (365.1/4.1)

.
2. A rsenate can interfere when it is present at concen trations higher than phospho rus. (365.1/4.3)

3. If sample color was reported indicate if the color absorbs in the photome tric range used during analysis. If so, designate the affected samples, the color, and the magnitude of the color.

4. S ample should be digested using persulfate (365.1/1 1.1.2) . If reported, indicate the
amount of persulfate used in the digestion and state any deviations noted in the lab’s digestion procedures

.
5. If the sample was not clear after digestion, the sample should be filtered (365.1/11.1.4)

. Note: Samples intended for total or total hydrolyzable phosphorus analysis should on ly be filtered after digestion (365.1/4.4)

.

6. A utomated continuous flow analysis equipment should be used to analyze the samples (365.1/6.4)

.

7. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less tha n 5 times the analyte concentration in t he laboratory reagent blank, report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample was less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the lab oratory reagent blank, report the result as an estimated value. List all affected samples:
<PAGE>

EX 10.48                                             Stock Option Plan Amendment
                                                       No. 5 to 1993 Omnibus.doc

                               STORAGE USA, INC.

                              AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO
                            1993 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN


     This Amendment No. 5, dated as of February 2, 2000 to the Storage USA, Inc.
1993 Omnibus Stock Plan, as amended, recites and provides as follows:

     At a meeting held on February 2, 2000, the Board of Directors of Storage
USA, Inc. (the "Company") resolved to amend the Company's 1993 Omnibus Stock
Plan (the "Plan"), pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Plan, to allow an optionee to
exercise vested, unexercised options for 30 days following termination of such
optionee's employment with the Company, except for a termination for cause
arising out of fraud, embezzlement or illegal conduct.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the following amendment to the Plan is hereby adopted:

     The first sentence of Paragraph 6 (e) is deleted in its entirety and the
     following substituted therefor:

     In the event of Termination (as defined below) of an optionee's status as
     an employee or director of the Company for any cause other than death,
     Disability (as defined below), fraud, embezzlement or illegal conduct, all
     unexercised, vested options shall terminate thirty (30) days following such
     Termination, or such longer period as the Committee may grant, and all
     unexercised, unvested options shall terminate at such Termination. In the
     event of a termination of an optionee's status as an employee or director
     of the Company for cause arising out of fraud, embezzlement or illegal
     conduct, all unexercised options, whether vested or unvested, shall
     terminate at such Termination.


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment No. 5 to be
executed as of the date first above written.


                                             STORAGE USA, INC.



                                             By: \s\ John W. McConomy
                                                ------------------------------
                                                 Executive Vice President,
                                                 General Counsel and Secretary
#### Ajit SINGH, Petitioner, v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent.

No. 02-70140.

INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 22, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ajit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision affirming an Immigration Judge’s decision denying his request for asylum and withholding of deportation and the BIA’s subsequent decision denying as untimely Singh’s motion to reopen his deportation proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Singh filed his petition for review over 30 days after the BIA’s final decision on his asylum and withholding of deportation claims. Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to review those claims. *See Narayan v. INS,*105 F.3d 1335, 1335 (9th Cir.1997) (order).

We have jurisdiction over the BIA’s decision denying Singh’s motion to reopen, and review for abuse of discretion. *See Mejia v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 873, 876 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA did not abuse its discretion when it denied Singh’s motion to reopen as untimely because the BIA satisfied its statutory notice requirements by mailing notice of its decision to the address of record for petitioner’s attorney. *See Dobrota v. INS,*311 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.2002). Furthermore, principles of equitable tolling cannot be considered in Singh’s case because they were not argued to the BIA, discussed by the BIA, or argued to this court. *See Rashtabadi v. INS,*23 F.3d 1562, 1567 (9th Cir.1994).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *459courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

DENIS CHAVEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-2902

[November 27, 2019]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Elizabeth Anne 

Scherer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 03-8048 CF10A.

Denis Chavez, Miami, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Jonathan BRADY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tim LeMASTER, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary; Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 02-2036.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2003.

William A. L’Esperance, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Patricia A. Madrid and M. Victoria Wilson, Office of the Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before SEYMOUR, EBEL, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

*527ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Jonathan Brady, a New Mexico prisoner, requests a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may be issued only when there is “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To demonstrate his entitlement to a COA, Mr. Brady must show “that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000) (quotation omitted).

On appeal, Mr. Brady argues that the district court erred in failing to require the State of New Mexico’s Department of Corrections to implement a statutorily mandated alternative incarceration program under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18-22, under which appellant was constitutionally entitled to apply for relief.

We have reviewed appellant’s brief and appendix. We find no error, and affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge, as adopted by the district court.

Appellant’s application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.