alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 15 , 2011

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00 493

- CV

____________ HAROLD B. MASON , Appellant

V.

TERRANCE L. SMALLWOOD , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 990084



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order signed May 11, 2011. According to information provided to this court, it appeared that the order was interlocutory and appellant wa s attempting to appeal from an order to pay costs in the trial

court

. In addition, appellant filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. On September 8, 2011, this court ordered a partial record concerning appellant’s claim of indigence so that we could ascertain whether this court has jurisdiction over this attempted2

appeal

. See In re Arroyo , 988 S.W.2d 737, 738

- 39 (Tex. 1998). That record has now
been filed.
The partial clerk’s record contains the order signed May 11, 2011 , sustaining the County Clerk’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence and requiring him to pay the filing fee and other costs of suit. It is apparent from th is record that t he order is interlocutory and no final judgment has been signed.
Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute. Ba lly Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson , 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps , 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). There is no statutory provision for an interlocutory appeal from an order requiring the payment of c osts of suit.

On October 10 , 2011, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before October 2 5, 2010. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). In response, a ppellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which has
been docketed under our case number 14

- 11

- 00934

- CV. Appellant has not established
that this court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Christopher.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00076-CR

No. 10-20-00077-CR

IN RE CARLOS PHILLIP GARCIA

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Carlos Phillip Garcia seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the 

return of funds removed from his inmate account. The procedure necessary to complain 

about an order to withhold funds from an inmate account was described in Harrell v. 

State, 286 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. 2009). See In re Buhl, Nos. 10-19-00478-CR, 10-19-00482-CR, 

2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 102 (Tex. App.—Waco Jan. 8, 2020, no pet.). That procedure is to 

file a motion complaining about the withdrawal order which should be filed with the trial 

court clerk for the trial court that signed the order. If the trial court then denies the relief 

requested in the motion, then an appeal, which will be a civil proceeding, can be taken 
In re Garcia Page 2

from that denial. There is nothing in the record before us to indicate Garcia filed a motion 

in the trial court complaining about the withdrawal order.

Because another procedure is available to Garcia, he is not entitled to relief by 

mandamus. Accordingly, Garcia’s petitions for writ of mandamus are denied.

JOHN E. NEILL

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Petitions denied

Opinion delivered and filed March 4, 2020

[OT06]
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with this quarterly report on
Form 10-Q of OPNET Technologies, Inc. (the Company), I, Marc A. Cohen, 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |     |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: February 9, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Marc A. Cohen                   
|                        |  |     |  | Marc A. Cohen                       
|                        |  |     |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to OPNET Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by OPNET Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Garland BENNETT et al., Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Department of Highways, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 30, 1959.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1959.

*707Robert E. Humphreys, Jr. and John W. Beard, Humphreys, Jones, Beard & Rummage, Owensboro, for appellants.

Dennie Gooch, Jr., Dept, of Highways, Frankfort, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Motion by Garland Bennett and wife for an appeal from a judgment of the Daviess Circuit Court which dismissed, on the motion of the Department of Highways, an appeal taken by the department from a condemnation judgment of the Daviess County Court, and which also dismissed, on the department’s motion, an attempted cross-appeal by the Bennetts, on the ground that it was filed too late.

The arguments advanced by the Bennetts, as to why they should be entitled to a trial in the circuit court on the issue of insufficient damages, notwithstanding that they did not file their cross-appeal within the time required by KRS 177.087, are the same arguments that were rejected by this Court in Bullitt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 298 S.W.2d 290.

The fact that the county court, in its judgment finding that the Department of Highways had the right to condemn, recited that the landowners had not questioned the authority of the department to condemn the land, whereas in fact the answer of the landowners in the county court did question the authority to condemn, would not make the judgment void, but merely erroneous, and the error could be remedied only by a timely appeal. See Crawford v. Riddle, 241 Ky. 839, 45 S.W.2d 463.

The motion for an appeal is overruled and the judgment stands affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-6133

AVENGER DON RIDGEWAY, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDALL LEE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-02-896-5-H) Submitted: May 13, 2004 D ecided: May 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Avenger Don Ridgeway, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Avenger Don Ridgeway, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ridgeway has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-39646, 33-39648, 33-88470, 33-88472, 333-18869, 333-70561, 33-76264 of
Parlex Corporation on Form S-8 of our report dated September 20, 2002
(September 27, 2002 as to paragraph 6 of Note 8) (which report expresses an
unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to a change
in the method of accounting for goodwill and other intangible assets),
appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Parlex Corporation for the
year ended June 30, 2002.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
October 10, 2003


<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

      The undersigned officer of Stratagene Corporation ("Stratagene" or the
"Company") hereby certifies that:

      (i) the accompanying quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"); and

      (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 12, 2004              By: /s/ Joseph A. Sorge, M.D.
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Joseph A. Sorge, M.D.
                                         Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
                                         President

This certification is provided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and
Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act.
In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall
not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or
otherwise subject to the liability of that section and (B) shall not be deemed
to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the
Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it
by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Stratagene and will be retained by Stratagene and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
SERVED: March 31, 2014 

US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

MARTINAIRE AVIATION, LLC 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2013- 0040 

HEARING NOTICE 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered on June 2 

through 6, 2014, inclusive, in the U.S. Tax Court, Courtroom 591, Federal Building, 207 S. Houston 

Street, Dallas, TX 75202. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. 

The parties shall vacate the courthouse on or before 5:00p.m. each day. 

Settled cases will not be removed from the docket until the Judge receives the proper pleading(s). 

Pleadings 1 may be forwarded by fax, express mail, courier or postal service2

• 

·Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 Materials filed in the FAA Hearing Docket (except for materials which are sealed) also available for viewing at 

hllp:llwrvw.regulations.gov. For additional information see: http://dms. dot.gov. 2 The Administrator's civil penalty decisions, along with indexes of the decisions, the Rules of Practice, as well as other 

materials relating to civil penalty cases, are available on the internet at: 

hllp:llwww.faa.gov/aboutloffice org/headquarters ofllces/agclpol adjudication/agc400/civi1 penaltvl: see also: 

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgilt/text/text-idx? c=ecfr&tpl=lecfrbrowse/Title 141 14tab 02.tpl. In addition, Thomson 

Reuters/West Publishing publishes Federal Aviation Decisions. Finally, the decisions are available through LEXIS 

(TRANS library) and WestLaw 9FTRAN-FAA database. For additional information, see the Web site. 
SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

ONE COPY 

Michael L. Dworkin, Respondent's Counsel 

Michael L. Dworkin and Associates Law Offices 

465 California Street, Suite 210 

San Francisco, CA 94104-1808 

TEL: 415-421-2500 

FAX: 415-421-2560 

James Archier, Complainant's Counsel 

Agency Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel 

Southwest Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2601 Meacham Blvd., Suite 6E 

Fort Worth, TX 76137 

TEL: 817-222-5074 

FAX: 817-222-5092 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS No. FAA-2013,.0040 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
TO: CLERK OF THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEALS

P 0 BOX 12303 CAPITAL STATION

AUSTIN; TEXAS 787.11

4^/^-oi-fcu^

12/23/2014

RE' FILING DATES / NUMBERS / OUTCOMES

OF C-3 0008220-0926958&-B-C-D-S-F-G-H

?.fR~65-469--01-02-03-Q4-05-06--07-0a

DEAR CLERK,

PLEASE wOfJLD 'YOU GIVE ME THE DATE3_NUMBERS_AND OUT-COMES OF THE ABOVE

CIT^D AND REQUESTED CASES ?

THANK YOU KINDLY'FOR YOCIR TIME, AND PATIENCE.

SINCERLY,

PAIGE LOUIS BENNER #1278531

2101 FM 369 Nth ALLRSD UNIT

\ IOWA PARK, TEXAS

76367-6563

PS IF AT .ALL POSSIBLE COULD I PLEASE GET THE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED FOR 092695cSH

fS - \t fa"6 <x.

cc PERSON Ai, FILE

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JAN 0 5 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk.

•CA
* 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. 07-50373

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LORENA RIVERA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-596-3

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Lorena Rivera pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with the intent to

distribute more than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§§ 841, 846. The district court sentenced her to 41 months of imprisonment and

three years of supervised release.

Rivera argues that the district court clearly erred in reducing her base

offense level by two levels for her minor participation in the offense, rather than

by four or three levels for her minimal or less than minor participation in the

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-50373

2

offense. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines provide for a reduction in the base

offense level of a “minor” or a “minimal” participant and a participant who falls

between a “minor” and “minimal” participant. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. To merit a

reduction under § 3B1.2, the defendant must have been “substantially less

culpable” than the average participant. § 3B1.2, comment. (n.3(A)). The role of

a defendant in the offense is a factual determination that we review for clear

error. United States v. Villanueva, 408 F.3d 193, 203 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2005).

The facts show that Rivera packaged the marijuana, loaded the marijuana,

knew that she was participating in the transportation of marijuana, and assisted

in the transportation of a large quantity of marijuana. Rivera has not shown

that her participation in the offense was “peripheral to the advancement of the

illicit activity” or that it was not “critical to the offense.” Villanueva, 408 F.3d

at 203 & n.9; United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 757 (5th Cir. 1998); United

States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 198 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not

clearly err in reducing Rivera’s offense level by two levels for her minor

participation in the offense, rather than by four or three levels for a minimal or

less than minor participation in the offense. Additionally, Rivera’s properly

calculated, within guidelines sentence is entitled to a presumption of

reasonableness. See United States v. Alonzo, 435 F.3d 551, 554 (5th Cir. 2006);

Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 8728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02533]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg], and Parcel Select Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: February 8, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg], and Parcel Select Contract 4 to Competitive Product 
List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-174, 
CP2024-180.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-02533 Filed 2-7-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
|EXHIBIT 32.2
|------------



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

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer ofBelmarCapital Fund LLC (the Fund), that based on his knowledge:

|(a) | theQuarterlyReport of the Fund on Form10-Qfor thequarterendedSeptember 30, 2007(the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   
|(b) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the Fund for such period.                                    
|   



|Date:November 9, 2007
|---------------------



| | /s/Andrew C. FrenetteAndrew C. FrenetteChief Financial Officer
| | --------------------------------------------------------------

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

372.1122
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-3167

___________

Donald L. Juranek, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. *

 *

Everett O. Inbody, Appeals Court Judge; *

Bryce Bartu; William H. Norton; *

Lindsey Miller-Lerman; Wesley C. Mues, *

Appeals; John C. Whitehead; Mark J. *

Fuhrman; Edward E. Hannon, Appeals; * Appeal from the United States

John R. Thompson; Clay B. Statmore; * District Court for the

Timothy V. Haight; Terrence L. * District of Nebraska.

Michaels; Barry L. Hemmerling; Leo F. *

Meister, Butler Sheriff; Nancy L. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Prochaska, District Clerk, Butler *

County; Farm Credit, Services of *

Midlands; First Nebraska Bank, also *

known as Platte Valley Bank; Siffring *

Farms, Inc.; Duane Siffring; Unknown *

Does, 1 to 99, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 17, 1997

 Filed: November 20, 1997

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BEAM, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Donald L. Juranek appeals from the district court&s Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of his action. Having reviewed the record and the parties&

briefs, we conclude that the district court&s judgment was correct and that an extended

opinion is not warranted. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**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 of Communicate.com Inc. (“Communicate”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David M. Jeffs,
President, Chief Executive Officer of Communicate and the sole member of the
Board of Directors, certify, pursuant to s.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) The
information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial condition
and result of operations of Communicate.
    */s/
David M. Jeffs*
 David M.
Jeffs
 Chief
Executive Officer
   May 16,
2005
   
 ***EX 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 of Communicate.com Inc. (“Communicate”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 16, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Cameron Pan,
Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of Communicate, certify,
pursuant to s.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) The
information contained in the Report fairly represents, the financial condition
and result of operations of Communicate.
   
   */s/
J. Cameron Pan*
 J.
Cameron Pan
 Chief
Financial Officer
   May 16,
2005
 
  ***EX 32
- 2***