alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 21

- 00363

- CV IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF BEN GARZA, III, DECEASED From the County Court , Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020

- PC

- 0203 Honorable Bill Squires , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice Delivered and Filed: February 16, 2022
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION On December 14, 2021 , this court issued an order requiring appellant to provide written proof to this court no later than December 27, 2021 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. Our order stated that if appellant failed to respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief would be due no later than January 13, 2022, and the court would consider only those issues or points raised in ap pellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 37.3(c). Appellant did not file written proof in response to our order ; therefore, appellant’s brief was due no later than January 13, 2022. Neither appellant’s bri ef nor a motion for extension of time were filed by January 13, 2022. Consequently, on January 19, 2022, we ordered appellant to file, no later than January 31, 2022 ,04

- 21

- 00363

- CV

- 2

- her brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) her failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. Our order cautioned that i f appellant fail ed to timely file a brief and the written response, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. Appel lant did not file a brief or the written response required by our January 19, 2022 order. We accordingly dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a) (1) ; 42.3 (b)

– (c).
PER CURIAM
**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**

 

Inconnection with Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofGenaissance Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Ben Kaplan, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,that:

 

(1)  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and 

 

(2)  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
|                                      |   | /s/  Ben Kaplan          |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------------|
| Date:   February  11, 2004 |   | Ben  Kaplan              |
|                                      |   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwith the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1995
<CASH>                                         866,750
<SECURITIES>                                 1,711,576
<RECEIVABLES>                                  848,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                   142,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,408,805
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,935,561
<PP&E>                                         332,136
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,640,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,014,620
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,566,384
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         8,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,228,277
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,014,620
<SALES>                                      5,648,754
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,648,754
<CGS>                                        1,579,196
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,572,069
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,142
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,554,653)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,554,653)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,554,653)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.19)
        


</TABLE>
#### RONALD L. GASKA v. KAREN V. COSTELLO ET AL.

(14434)

O’Connell, Lavery and Landau, Js.

Submitted on briefs February 22

decision released March 26, 1996

*946
      *Gilbert Shasha*filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff).

*Christopher F. Wanat*filed a brief for the appel-lees (defendants).

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          28,132
<SECURITIES>                                 8,233,220
<RECEIVABLES>                                  681,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,942,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,202,302
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            (1,711,901)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (574,500)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,246,401)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Bernle GRAHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28375.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for the possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
**FORM 10-K /A**

**Amendment No. 1**

	 

****or****

**Commission file number 1-8644**

**IPALCO ENTERPRISES, INC.**(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

|                                                                                |                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
| **Indiana**                                                                    | **35-1575582**                       |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)                 | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
|                                                                           |                                 |
| **One Monument Circle,							Indianapolis, Indiana**                           | **46204**                            |
| (Address of principal executive offices)                                       | (Zip Code)                           |
|                                                                           |                                 |
| Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:  			**317-261-8261** |
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,
UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Anthony A.
Lombardo, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of E-Z-EM, Inc. (the
Company), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1.
the Annual
  Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 3, 2006
  (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and2.
the
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
  respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Date:
August 17, 2006

/s/
  Anthony A. LombardoAnthony
  A. Lombardo, President,Chief
  Executive Officer, Director -111-
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 6, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00538

- CR

IN RE Avery B. CRAWFORD

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On August 2, 2018, r elato r filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition

for writ of mandamus is D ISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.8(a) . The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on August 6, 2018

.

___________________ ______________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 6th day of August, 2018

.

___________________ ________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court

1 This pro ceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CR10532 & 2017CR10534, styled The State of Texas v. Avery B.

Crawford , pending in the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jefferson Moore

presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1791 Reference Change Senate (RCS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1791

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2011

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                            January 24, 2012

  Committee discharged; referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States courthouse under construction at 101 
South United States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``Alto Lee 
                Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States courthouse under construction at 101 South United 
States Route 1 in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Alto Lee Adams, Sr., United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States courthouse referred to 
in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Alto Lee Adams, 
Sr., United States Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 16, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Exhibit 31.2
Certification of the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule 13a-
14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Michael T. Everett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of WebEx
Communications, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) 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 caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 13, 2003


/s/   Michael T. Everett
--------------------------
Michael T. Everett
Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MIGUEL MENDOZA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 2 30

- C R

Appeal from the

41 st District Cour t

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20140D02819 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS Bertha Prieto ’s r equest for an extension of time within which to file

the Reporter ’ s Record until April 4 , 201 8

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER ’ S RECORD WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that Bertha P rieto

, Court Reporter for the 4 1 st D istrict Court for

El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter ’ s Record and forward the same to this Cou rt on or

before April 4 , 201 8

.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 6 th day of March , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Mrs. H. L. CALDWELL, Appellant, v. Ray FRAZIER, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 24, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 27, 1957.

'Bernard B. Davis, Shelbyville, for appellant.

Turner & Jones, Newcastle, for appellee-

*923PER CURIAM.

This is a motion for an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings for the plaintiff, which disallowed the defendant $1,170, an amount claimed by way of credit in defendant’s Answer.

The suit was in the nature of an accounting between a landlord and tenant under a written farm lease. The plaintiff’s complaint itemized various amounts due the respective parties. Defendant’s Answer admitted the amounts owing to the plaintiff, ■but added:

> “ * * * except that defendant states that in addition to the $254.19 which the plaintiff admits he owes the •defendant, he also owes her $27.00 for pasture of a pony plus $589.75 for labor which the plaintiff was supposed to have rendered for the defendant on ■defendant’s farm and which he failed and refused to do and $553.25 for labor in the crops making a total of $1,170.00 more which plaintiff owes the defendant than he admits.”

These allegations of the defendant do not state the basis of the claims, and contrary to defendant’s contention, the plaintiff’s pleadings do not furnish such a basis. Certainly this pleading was subject to a motion to make more definite under CR 12.05.

The record indicates that objections to this pleading were called to the attention of defendant’s counsel because the judgment recites “that counsel for the defendant announced his refusal to amend and that he is relying for defendant’s claim solely upon his Answer as filed herein.”

While the Civil Rules should be liberally construed on matters of pleading, they were not designed to abolish the requirement that a party state in plain and adequate terms the basis of his claim or ■defense. See Clay, CR 8.01, Comment 2.

Since the defendant elected to stand on what is an inadequate pleading, the trial court was fully justified in entering the judgment for the plaintiff.

We deem it proper to call attention to the fact that counsel representing the defendant on this appeal did not represent the defendant in the proceedings before the trial court.

The motion for appeal is denied, and the judgment stands affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Green Dolphin
Systems Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the Quarter Ended March
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Quarterly Report"), I, Nicholas Plessas, Principal Executive
Officer and the Principal Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

         (1) The Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
             Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Quarterly Report fully presents,
             in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
             operations of the Company.


By: /s/ Nicholas Plessas
    --------------------
    Nicholas Plessas
    President and Chief Executive Officer
    and Chief Financial Officer

March 31, 2004
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1449V

UNPUBLISHED

MARITZA SERRANO,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 24, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); 

Damages Decision Based on Proffer; 

Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder 

Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Roberto Ruiz-Comas, RC Legal & Litigation Services PSC, San Juan, PR, for Petitioner.

Robert Paul Coleman, III, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES1

On September 21, 2018, Maritza Serrano filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered a SIRVA resulting from adverse 

effects of an influenza vaccination received on October 21, 2015. Petition at 1. The 

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

On April 21, 2020, Respondent filed a joint Rule 4(c) report and proffer on award 

of compensation (“Proffer”). On April 24, 2020, a ruling on entitlement was issued, 

finding Petitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA. The April 21, 2020 Proffer 

indicated that Petitioner should be awarded $107,500.00. Proffer at 3. In the Proffer, 

Respondent represented that Petitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on 

 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the 

E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of

Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access 

to the internet. 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, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I 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).
2

the record as a whole, I find that Petitioner is entitled to an award as stated in the 

Proffer.

Pursuant to the terms stated in the Proffer, I award Petitioner a lump sum 

payment of $107,500.00 in the form of a check payable to Petitioner. This amount

represents compensation for all damages that would be available under § 15(a). 

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 

decision.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master

 

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice 

renouncing the right to seek review.