alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT J 

APP063

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID 522
	
	 
 APP064

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID 523
	
	 
 APP065

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID 524
	
	 
 APP066

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID 525
	
	 

 APP067

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID 526
	
	 
 APP068

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID 527
	
	 
 APP069

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID 528
	
	 
 APP070

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID 529
	
	 
 APP071

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID 530
	
	 
 APP072

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID 531
	
	 
 APP073

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID 532
	
	 
 APP074

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID 533
	
	 
 APP075

Case 3:22-cv-00686-X Document 20-10 Filed 05/18/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID 534
Case 2:22-cr-00030-Z-BR Document 105 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 245
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Dallas Division

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. * Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00706 (E)

*

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, *

*

Defendant. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

UPON CONSIDERATION OF Defendant’s Emergency Motion for Extension of Time, 

any Opposition thereto, and the entire record herein, it is this _______ day of __________, 2023, 

ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion is DENIED; and

FURTHER ORDERED that the ex parte, in camera declaration lodged in support of 

Defendant’s Motion is struck from the record.

_______________________________________

ADA BROWN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 30-1 Filed 08/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 480
Case 4:22-cv-00214-O Document 2 Filed 03/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 15
Case 4:22-cv-00214-O Document 2 Filed 03/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 16
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jared Walter Adair v. Ricky's Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-22-00359-CV

Trial court case number: 1181899

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 4 of Harris County

Appellant Jared Walter Adair, acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

April 28, 2022 order in a forcible entry and detainer action. On August 26, 2022, Appellant filed 

his appellate brief. The brief does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Specifically, the brief does not:

• Identify all parties to the trial court’s judgment and their counsel, see TEX. R. APP.

P. 38.1(a);

• Contain a table of contents, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(b);

• Contain an index of authorities, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(c);

• Contain a statement of the case that “state[s] concisely the nature of the case, the 

course of proceedings, and the trial court’s disposition of the case” and that is 

supported by record references, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(d);

• Contain a statement about whether oral argument should be permitted, see TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1(e);

• Concisely identify the issues presented, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(f);

• Contain a statement of facts that “state[s] concisely and without argument the 

facts pertinent to the issues or points presented” and that is supported by record 

references, see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g);

• Contain a summary of the argument that is a “succinct, clear, and accurate 

statement of the arguments made in the body of the brief” without “merely 

repeat[ing] the issues or points presented for review,” see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h);

• Contain a “clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate 

citations to authorities and the record,” see TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); or
• Contain a prayer that “clearly states the nature of the relief sought,” see TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1(j).

Accordingly, Appellant’s brief is stricken. Appellant must file a corrected brief in 

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. The deadline for filing the corrected

brief is October 3, 2022.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: September 1, 2022
#### F. D. BAKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27206.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 24, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The conviction is for a violation of the liquor law in Lamar County. The penalty assessed is a fine of $500.

All matters of procedure appear to be in regular form. The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception. In the absence thereof nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
1 C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Cameron Michael Moon

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 1 0 1 4

- CR

Trial court case number: 14 67534A

Trial court: 182nd District Court of Harris County

On January 4 , 201 9 , appellant

, Cameron Michael Moon

, filed his b rief in this

appeal

. A ppellant has filed a motion to file an amended b rief along with his amended

brief . The motion is granted

.

The Clerk of this Court filed appellant’s amended brief on January 7, 2019. The

State’s brief remains due on January 24, 2018. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 31.2(b), 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___ Janu ary 15, 2019

__
O rder filed May 9 , 2013



### In The



# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________

No. 11

- 1 2

- 00 0 40

- C V

__________

SIERRA CLUB , Appellant

V.

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY AND TENASKA TRAILBLAZER PARTNERS, LLC

, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 201st District Court

Travis County, Texas

Tri al Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 1

- 0007632 

### __________

No. 11

- 1 2

- 00 108

- C V

__________

MULTI

- COUNTY COALITION , Appellant

V.

TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY AND TENASKA TRAILBLAZER PARTNERS, LLC

, Appellee s

On Appeal from the 345th District Court

Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 11

- 0008 1 5

O R D E R

This court has reviewed the briefs in these appeals and the issues appear to

be identical. The cases are consolidated for purposes of oral submission. The time

allotted for argument will be 25 minutes total for Appellants, 25 minutes total for

Appellees, a nd 10 minutes for rebuttal. The attorneys are directed to advise the

Clerk of this court on or before May 30, 2013, as to the division of that time.

PER CURIAM

May 9 , 2013

Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Willson , J.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of -- )

)

Facility Defense Consultants, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 61145, 61315, 61316

 d/b/a Hanke Constructors ) 61317, 61414, 61558

)

Under Contract No. W912DQ-14-D-4003 )

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Leonard R. Ruzicka, Jr., Esq.

 Ruzicka Law Firm, LLC

 St. Louis, MO

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Michael P. Goodman, Esq.

 Engineer Chief Trial Attorney

Kristine R. Hoffman, Esq.

Virginia Murray, Esq.

 Engineer Trial Attorneys

 U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City

 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. These appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: July 2, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61145, 61315, 61316, 61317, 

61414, 61558, Appeals of Facility Defense Consultants, Inc. d/b/a Hanke Constructors, 

rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: July 2, 2020

CHRISTOPHER M. MCNULTY

Administrative Judge

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services
2

Board of Contract Appeals
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 215 / Monday, November 6, 2000 / Notices 66587

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Open Meeting of Citizen Advocacy

Panel, Brooklyn District

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS),

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the

Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy

Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New

York.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday,

December 8, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen Cain at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–

488–3555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given pursuant to Section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988)

that an operational meeting of the

Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held

Friday, December 8, 2000, 6:00 p.m. to

9:00 p.m. at the Internal Revenue

Service Brooklyn Building located at

625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201.

For more information or to confirm

attendance, notification of intent to

attend the meeting must be made with

Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached

at 1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3555.

The public is invited to make oral

comments from 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

on Friday, December 8, 2000. Individual

comments will be limited to 5 minutes.

If you would like to have the CAP

consider a written statement, please call

1–888–912–1227 or 718–488–3555, or

write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box

R, Brooklyn, NY, 11201.

The Agenda will include the

following: various IRS issues.

Note: Last minute changes to the agenda

are possible and could prevent effective

advance notice.

Dated: October 27, 2000.

M. Cathy Vanhorn,

Director, CAP, Communications & Liaison,

Taxpayer Advocate Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28434 Filed 11–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
#### The State, ex rel. Smith, *v.*Young, Judge, et al.

(No. 28286

Decided October 9, 1940.)

*320
      *Mr. Paul D. Smith*and *Mr. Thomas H. Sutherland,*for relator.

*Messrs. Guthery & Guthery,*for respondents.

By the Court.

In the foregoing statement of facts enough has been recited from the petition to demonstrate an attempt to invoke a writ of mandamus to control the exercise of discretion by the trial court or to substitute the writ for an appeal. The writ will not issue for such purposes. Section 12285, General Code; *State, ex rel. Jaster, Jr., Dir. of Highways,*v. *Kautz, Judge,*131 Ohio St., 103, 2 N. E. (2d), 1.

We recognize the rule that ordinarily a motion to strike from a petition should not be treated as a demurrer. This court has not adhered strictly to that rule. *Finch*v. *Finch,*10 Ohio St., 501; *Robinson*v. *Fitch,*26 Ohio St., 659; *Zajachuck*v. *Willard Storage Battery Co.,*106 Ohio St., 538, 140 N. E., 405. The present, proceeding presents another illustration of the necessity of relaxing a rigorous rule to facilitate the administration of justice.

Without passing upon the twenty assigned grounds to strike from the petition, we *sua sponte*consider the motion as a demurrer, sustain the same and dismiss the petition.

*Petition dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Matthias, Hart and Turner, JJ., concur.
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 2
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 3
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 4
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 5
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cr-00136-B Document 1 Filed 04/05/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 10
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from

September 21, 1993.Wednesday, September 15, 1993 to Tuesday,
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 145

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednes3 day, September 15, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon

4 on Tuesday, September 21, 1993.

Passed the House of Representatives September 14,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.23

                         AMENDMENT TO SERVICES AGREEMENT

      This amendment ("Amendment") dated as of March 30, 2007 is by and between
Barington Capital Group, L.P., a New York limited partnership with an address at
888 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor, New York, New York 10019 ("BCG"), and
Dynabazaar, Inc., a Delaware corporation with an address at 888 Seventh Avenue,
17th Floor, New York, New York 10019 (the "Company").

                                    RECITALS:

      WHEREAS, the Company and BCG are parties to that certain Services
Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2005, as amended (the "Agreement"); and

      WHEREAS, the Company and BCG desire to amend the Agreement as set forth
herein, effective as of January 1, 2007, to extend the term of the Agreement and
provide for an adjustment in the monthly fee payable under the Agreement
following the closing of the transactions (the "Transactions") contemplated by
the Amended and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger entered into as of
February 26, 2007 by and among the Company, L Q Corporation, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and LQ Merger Corp., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company.

      NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants expressed herein
and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound
hereby, agree as follows:

      1.    Section 3A of the Agreement is hereby amended so as to provide that
            the fee payable by the Company to BCG shall be $7,500 a month until
            the closing of the Transactions, and thereafter $10,000 a month.

      2.    Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby amended to extend the term of
            the Agreement until December 31, 2007.

      3.    This Amendment shall be effective as of January 1, 2007. The
            Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is in full force and effect
            and is hereby ratified and confirmed.

      4.    This Amendment may be executed by the parties hereto in separate
            counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be
            an original, but all such counterparts shall together constitute but
            one and the same instrument.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed by their authorized representative as of the date set forth above.

                                         BARINGTON CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.

                                         By: LNA Capital Corp., General Partner

                                         By: /s/ James A. Mitarotonda
                                             ------------------------
                                                James A. Mitarotonda
                                                Chairman

                                         DYNABAZAAR, INC.

                                         By: /s/ Rory Cowan
                                             ------------------------
                                             Rory Cowan
                                             Chairman
#### LUDWICK v. KASSENBROCK et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 19, 1952.

J. Ballard Clark and Clark & Manby, La Grange, for appellant.

D. E. Wooldridge, La Grange, for appel-lee.

*629WADDILL, Commissioner.

This appeal is from a judgment denying appellant’s claim to a passway across the land of the appellees.

Prior to 1887 the land now owned 'by the parties to this suit belonged to B. B. Button. After Button’s death the land now owned by appellant was conveyed to T. A. Button and this deed provided for a fifteen-foot passway over the land now owned by ap-pellees to a place where it intersects a public road known as the “La Grange Road.”

Appellant’s evidence is to the effect that the passway in question has been used by appellant’s predecessors in title and by the public since 1887 and by appellant since 1945 when she purchased the property. However, appellees’ proof tends to show that the passway in controversy was closed during the year 1910 by the predecessors in title of the parties to this action and that it has not been reopened for use over appel-lees’ land except on occasions when permission had been specifically granted.

The Chancellor found that the passway was closed during the year 1910 and remained closed to the public and that the proof does not sufficiently establish that appellant and her grantors had the unobstructed, hostile and continuous use of the passway as a matter of right for a period of fifteen years of more.

We have no doubt as to the correctness of the -Chancellor’s determination.

Judgment affirmed.
April 17, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MAX PROTETCH, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-13-00125-CV V.

JOHN A. HERRIN, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, John A. 

Herrin, signed November 19, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We 

have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the 

judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Max Protetch, Inc. to pay all costs incurred in this 

appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 12.6

PRECISION PACKAGING AND SERVICING INC.  FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION  (GUARANTORS ONLY)

|                                                      |                              | For The Period
February 29, 2000 to
December 31, 2000 |       | 2001  |  
|----------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------- | ----- | ----- | -
|
|Income (loss) before taxes                            |                              | $                                                     | 770   |       | $
|Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes |                              |                                                       |       |       |  
|                                                      | Interest expense             |                                                       |       | 2,497 |  
|                                                      | One third of rental expenses |                                                       |       | 32    |  
|                                                      |                              |                                                       |       |       |  
|Total fixed charges                                   |                              | $                                                     | 2,529 |       | $
|                                                      |                              |                                                       |       |       |  
|Income (loss) before taxes plus fixed charges above   |                              | $                                                     | 3,299 |       | $
|                                                      |                              |                                                       |       |       |  
|Fixed charge ratio                                    |                              |                                                       | 1.30x |       |  
|                                                      | Fixed charge deficiency      |                                                       |       |       |  

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40721 Summary Calendar

CURTIS LEON THOMAS, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus THE TEXAS DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-95-CV-27

- - - - - - - - - - December 17, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Curtis Leon Thomas, #660149, appeals the dismissal of his complaint as frivolous. Assuming Thomas had a constitutional right not to have his mail delivered to or read by another inmate, at most, Thomas has alleged negligence in the handling of his mail. Negligence is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). The district court did not err in dismissing Thomas’ suit on the basis thatNo. 96-40721 - 2 - the due process clause is not implicated by a state official’s negligent act causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property. This appeal is frivolous. We caution Thomas that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Thomas is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DAVID PAUL KRIKIE, )

#21016009, )

Plaintiff, )

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-492-K (BH)

)

STATE OF TEXAS, )

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any

objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court is of the opinion

that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are

accepted as the Findings and Conclusions of the Court. By separate judgment, the

plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for

failure to prosecute or comply with court orders

SO ORDERED.

Signed September 9th, 2022.

____________________________________

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00492-K-BH Document 9 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 80
EXHIBIT 99.2

                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            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 Viseon, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John Harris, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted 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.


Dated:  February 14, 2003                By       /s/ John Harris
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JONATHAN MATHEW KNIGHT,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-16-00123-CR

Appeal from the

County Criminal Court No. 1 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 20150C06154) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 15TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.