alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTE : This o rder is non precedential.


# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________
FREDERICK W. BAUER, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.

SLOAN D. GIBSON, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2014

- 7064

______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 14

- 0132, Judge Alan G. Lance, Sr.

______________________

ON MOTI ON

______________________ O R D E R

Frederick W. Bauer moves out of time for a 30

- day extension of time to file his reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof, Case: 14-7064 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2014BAUER v. GIBSON 2

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The motion is granted. Bauer’s reply brief is due no later than 30 days from the date of this order.

F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court

s25 Case: 14-7064 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2014
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

271) ll-K- fl) 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:58 AM Sheet 271 of 325 
P.2 

II-K-(A)-3 

DOCUMENTATION OF THE INTERACTIVE PL/1 COMPUTER PROGRAM 

TO SUBMIT IFCAM BACKGROUND BATCH JOBS. 

EEA. 

November 19, 1981. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(A)-3
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 23337.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1946.

James Ingram, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of receiving and concealing stolen property and his punishment assessed at ten years’ confinement in the state penitentiary.

Upon the overruling of his motion for new trial appellant gave notice of appeal to this court. On the 10th day of January he filed his personal affidavit requesting that said appeal be dismissed in order that he might immediately begin serving the sentence assessed against him.

In compliance with such request the appeal is ordered dismissed.
================================================================================

Exhibit 31.1

                          FORM OF OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
                             PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

The undersigned CEO, President and Director of Dawn Capital Corp., hereby
certifies that:

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annua1 report does not contain any untrue
      statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in
      order 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 annual report;

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

4.    The Company's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining "disclosure controls and procedures" (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and have:

      a.    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
            material information relating to the Company, including its
            consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
            those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual
            report is being prepared;

      b.    evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
            procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
            this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"; and

      c.    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
            effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
            evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The Company's other certifying officers and I have disclosed based on our
      most recent evaluation, to the Company's auditors and to the audit
      committee of the board of directors (or persons fulfilling the equivalent
      function):

      a.    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
            controls which could adversely affect the Company's ability to
            record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
            identified for the Company's auditors any material weaknesses in
            internal controls; and

      b.    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
            other employees who have a significant role in the Company's
            internal controls.


Dated: March 29, 2004                   By: /s/ Gerry Racicot
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Gerry Racicot, CEO, President and
                                            Director
Order entered November 29 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01321
- CV MARK RINES, Appellant

V. CITY OF CARROLLTON, Appellee On Appeal from the 134th Judici al District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 15
- 07615



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s November 23, 2016 “O bjection to C ourt R eporter’s
R ecord , and U nopposed M otions for an E xtension of T ime to C orrect R eporter’s R ecord and
Extens ion of Time to F ile A ppellant’s B rief ” seeking an extension of time to file his brief . We
GRANT appellant’s motion

. We ORDER appellant to file the brief on or before December 16, 2016.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 29, 2016

a0726

Order 

Clerk

July 29, 2016

154099

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 154099

COA: 332255 

Oakland CC: 2015-255948-FH

CHRISTOPHER DUKES,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 20, 2016 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should now be reviewed by this Court.
Supreme Court of Texas

══════════

No. 23-0444

══════════

J-W Power Company,

Petitioner,

v.

Frio County Appraisal District,

Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════

On Petition for Review from the

Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas

═══════════════════════════════════════

PER CURIAM

Justice Young did not participate in the decision.

The petition for review is granted. Without hearing oral 

argument, see TEX. R. APP. P. 59.1, the court of appeals’ judgment is 

reversed in light of J-W Power Co. v. Sterling County Appraisal District, 

___ S.W.3d ___, 2024 WL 2869325 (Tex. June 7, 2024). The case is 

remanded to the court of appeals to consider issues it did not reach.

OPINION DELIVERED: June 21, 2024
Exhibit 32.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned
certify pursuant to ss. 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.


/s/ Wang Qiong                                                March 31, 2005
--------------
Wang Qiong
Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Shuiwang Wei                                              March 31, 2005
----------------
Shuiwang Wei
Chief Financial Officer
#### COLEMAN v. COLEMAN.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 6, 1951.

*527T. T. Burchell, Manchester, for appellant.

Hiram H. Owens, Barbourville, John M. Lyttle, Manchester, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Mrs: Ruby Coleman was granted a divorce from Elmer Coleman on her counterclaim. She was awarded custody of the couple’s five children, ■ whose ages ranged from 15 to five years, and was allowed $50 per month for their support. She was denied alimony.

On this appeal it is contended that an award of alimony should have been made in favor of Mrs. Coleman and that the ah lowance of $50 per month for the maintenance of the children was insufficient. It is urged also that an allowance should have been made to Mrs. Coleman for an attorney’s -fee.

Coleman operates a machine shop in Clay County. He said-that his average monthly earnings after payment of expenses of his shop were $100 a month. He said also that he owed about $1000. Mrs. Coleman owns no "property.

Coleman is under 40 years of age, and no valid reason is shown why he should not make some substantial contribution to the support of his family. Therefore, we reverse the judgment, with directions that an allowance of $1000 in alimony be made to Mrs. Coleman; that $75 per month be allowed for the support of the children; and that $50 be allowed Mrs. Coleman for an attorney’s fee.

Judgment reversed.
**EXHIBIT
      32.A**










**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-Q for the period ending
      September 30, 2007, of Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (the “Company”)
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, James C. Yardley, Chairman of the Board and President,
      certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii)
      that
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.










*/s/
              JAMES
              C. YARDLEY*James
                C.
                YardleyChairman
                of
                the Board and President(Principal
                Executive Officer)








November
                6,
                2007











A
      signed original
      of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Tennessee
      Gas Pipeline Company and will be retained by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
      and
      furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0032

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CARLOS VALENZUELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the 

Appellant is given an extension of time until April 29, 2020 to prepare, 

file, and serve the Appellant’s opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

March 30 2020

03/30/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0032
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6887-3] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of charter renewal. 

# SUMMARY:

The Charter for the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board (GMPPRB) will be renewed for an additional two-year period, as a necessary committee which is in the public interest, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App section 9(c). The purpose of GMPPRB is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on issues associated with environmental management and policy of the Gulf of Mexico. 

It is determined that GMPPRB is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Agency by law. 

Inquiries may be directed to Gloria Car, U.S. EPA, Building 1103, Room 202, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529. 

Dated: October 10, 2000. 

Gloria D. Car, 

Designated Federal Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-26912 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
##### 








---



##### 



Name of Corporation
    
    NIS GROUP CO., LTD.Date of Incorporation
    
    May 27, 1960




---



##### 



Name of Shareholder:
    
    
    Date of Issuance of Share
Certificate:Date ofRegistration
    
    
    Name ofShareholder
    
    
    RegistrationSeal
    
    
    Date ofRegistration
    
    
    Name ofShareholder
    
    
    RegistrationSeal1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    52
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    63


    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    74
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8
EXHIBIT
32.1




CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Bo
Chen, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report
on Form 10-K of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Bodisen Biotech,
Inc.




Dated:
      March 30, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Bo ChenBo
      ChenChief
      Executive Officer





I, Junyan
Tong certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the annual report
on Form 10-K of Bodisen Biotech, Inc. for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Bodisen Biotech,
Inc.




Dated:
      March 30, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Junyan TongJunyan
      TongChief
      Financial Officer
**Exhibit
      99.6**





**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 Annual Report of YM BioSciences Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      40-F for the year ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David G.P. Allan, 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
      to
      the best of my knowledge:




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.


By: /s/
        David G.P. Allan
 David
        G.P. Allan
 Chief
        Executive Officer
  September
        28, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0542

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

FRANK WEBB,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 29, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2023

12/22/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0542
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADDITIONAL COUNSEL PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) 

INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC. 

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-487-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-488-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-489-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-490-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-491-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-492-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-493-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-494-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-495-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-496-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-497-ADA

 

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Please take notice that Craig D. Cherry of the law firm of Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, 

PLLC hereby enters an appearance as additional counsel for the Plaintiff in the above captioned 

case. 

All counsel are requested to send copies of future pleadings, orders, notices, and 

correspondence to Craig Cherry at the law firm of Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, PLLC. Mr. 

Cherry’s contact information is provided below:

Steckler Wayne Cochran Cherry, PLLC

8416 Old McGregor Road

Waco, Texas 76712

Telephone: (254) 651-3690

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689

Email: craig@swclaw.com

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 119 Filed 10/22/21 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE ADDITIONAL COUNSEL PAGE 2

Respectfully submitted,

STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY, PLLC

8416 Old McGregor Road

Waco, Texas 76712

Telephone: (254) 651-3690

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689

BY: /s/ Craig D. Cherry_________

CRAIG D. CHERRY

Bar No. 24012419

Email: craig@swclaw.com

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF WSOU 

INVESTMENTS, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, on this the 

22nd day of October 2021.

\s\ Craig D. Cherry

CRAIG D. CHERRY

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 119 Filed 10/22/21 Page 2 of 2
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 25683.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 30, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of whiskey in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $600.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception.

The complaint and information appear regular on their face; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### The State, ex rel. Wittenberg, Appellant, *v.*City of Cleveland et al., Appellees.

(No. 28124

Decided May 8, 1940.)

*Mr. Irwin Greene,*for appellant.

*Mr. Henry 8. Brainard,*director of law, and *Mr. Edward Blythin,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

 No. 00-20618 c/w 

No. 00-20619 

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HERMILO HERRERO,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-1018

USDC No. H-95-CR-231-3

- - - - - - - - - -

April 27, 2001

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Currently before the court in No. 00-20618 is the notice of

appeal filed by Hermilo Herrero, federal prisoner # 70135-079, from

the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 motion as successive. The notice of appeal has been

construed as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA)

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Also before the court in No.

00-20619 is Herrero’s appeal from the district court’s denial of

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a reduction of sentence.
 No. 00-20618 c/w

No. 00-20619

-2-

Because both appeals share the same record, appeal Nos. 00-20618

and 00-20619 are hereby CONSOLIDATED. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(b)(2).

Herrero argues in No. 00-20618 that the district court erred

in construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, which attacked his prior

state court convictions, as successive. Because Herrero has not

shown why he could not have raised this challenge in his first 28

U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he has failed to demonstrate that jurists of

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was

correct in its procedural ruling. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). Accordingly, the request for a COA in No. 00-20618 is

DENIED.

Herrero argues in No. 00-20619 that the district court erred

in applying the 1995 version of the Sentencing Guidelines, which

incorporated amendment 528, to find that he was a career offender.

He is not seeking relief as a result of a subsequent amendment that

has lowered his guidelines range; he instead is attacking the

district court’s application of the guidelines in his case. Such

claims are not cognizable under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The

district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying

the motion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir. 1994).

The judgment of the district court in No. 00-20619 is AFFIRMED.