alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MITCHELL RYAN, §

§

 Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

GRAPEVINE-COLLEYVILLE 

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, et al.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:21-cv-01075-P

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Proceed Without Local 

Counsel. ECF No. 10. Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be

GRANTED in part. The Court therefore GRANTS leave to Plaintiff’s counsel to proceed 

in the September 24, 2021 hearing without local counsel.

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file the entry of appearance of local counsel 

satisfying the requirements of Local Rule 83.10(a) on or before September 30, 2021. 

Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions and/or the 

dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice.

SO ORDERED on this 23rd day of September, 2021.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:21-cv-01075-P Document 11 Filed 09/23/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID 41
* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-31167

Conference Calendar

VERNON J TATUM, JR

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH; AMERICAN NATIONAL RED

CROSS; TONY MANCUSO, in his capacity as Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CV-705

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vernon J. Tatum, Jr., appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’

motions to dismiss his complaint as prescribed. Tatum argues that the district

court abused its discretion by granting him only 15 additional days to respond

to the motions to dismiss instead of the 30 days he requested.

The final motion to dismiss was filed on May 8, 2007. Tatum initially

moved for an extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss on June 5,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-31167

2

2007, and he cured the final deficiency of that motion on July 5, 2007. As Tatum

filed the motion for extension of time after the time for responding to the

motions to dismiss had expired, he was required to show excusable neglect. See

FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B).

The district court granted Tatum 15 additional days to file his response to

the motion to dismiss in the middle of October 2007, and it did not rule on the

motions to dismiss until November 5, 2007. Tatum had almost eight months

from the filing of the final motion to dismiss to respond. Tatum, however, did

not ever file a response to the motions to dismiss in the district court, and he has

still not stated what arguments he would have raised in such a response. Tatum

has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to fully

grant his motion for extension of time. See Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of

Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

DENNIS DALE HUBBLE, Jr.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-30227

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00019-TMB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 6, 2012** 

Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Dale Hubble, Jr. appeals from his 160-month sentence following his

guilty-plea conviction for four counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 2113(a) and (d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-30227

Hubble contends that the district court gave too much weight to its career

offender finding and imposed a sentence that was greater than necessary under

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The record reflects that the district court carefully considered

the section 3553(a) sentencing factors, and imposed a sentence reflective of

Hubble’s extensive criminal history, the need to protect the public, and Hubble’s

failure to be deterred. Hubble’s sentence, 28 months below the advisory

Sentencing Guidelines range, is substantively reasonable in light of the totality of

the circumstances and the section 3553(a) sentencing factors. See United States v.

Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.
June 25, 2015

Mr. Reinaldo Gutierrez SkyDrone Services LLC.

19164 N Hibiscus Street Weston, FL 33332

Dear Mr. Gutierrez:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) . It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 16, exemption request on behalf of SkyDrone Services LLC into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-2163), but we are unabl e to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO 

SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This
First Amendment to Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of August 20, 2015, to be effective as of August 24, 2015, by and between Cinemark Holdings, Inc., a
Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Timothy Warner (“Executive”). 
 PRELIMINARY
STATEMENTS 
 A. The Company and Executive are parties to that certain Second Amended and Restated Employment Agreement made and entered
into as of January 21, 2014, by and between the Company and Executive (the “Agreement”). Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement. 

B. The Company and Executive have agreed to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth. 

STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Company and Executive agree as follows: 
 1. Executive hereby resigns the title and position of Chief Executive Officer
of the Company and its subsidiaries effective August 24, 2015 (the “Effective Date”). Effective as of the expiration of the term of the Agreement, Executive shall be deemed to have resigned the positions of Vice Chairman
and as a director of the Company and any other positions and directorships held by Executive in the Company or its subsidiaries without further action by Executive. 

2. Section 1.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 

“The Company hereby employs Executive as Vice Chairman of the Company effective as of August 24, 2015. Executive’s duties,
responsibilities and authority shall be consistent with Executive’s position and title and such other duties, responsibilities and authority as may be assigned to Executive by the Chief Executive Officer. Executive shall report directly to the
Chief Executive Officer of the Company.” 
 3. Executive acknowledges and agrees that the change of Executive’s title and
reporting pursuant to this Amendment shall not constitute Good Reason for the purposes of the Agreement, and Executive agrees to continue his employment with the Company under the terms of the Agreement, as amended hereby, through the current term
of the Agreement. 







 4. The Company agrees to engage Executive as a consultant to the Company for a one year period
commencing concurrently with the expiration of the term of the Agreement pursuant to the terms of a Consulting Agreement mutually agreed upon by the Company and Executive. 

5. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly authorized representative and Executive has
executed this Amendment, effective as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	COMPANY:
	
	CINEMARK HOLDINGS, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Michael Cavalier

	Name:	 	 Michael D. Cavalier

	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President – General Counsel

	
	EXECUTIVE:
	
	 /s/ Tim Warner

	Timothy Warner



  
 2
#### Joe EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 24366.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 4, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The judgment in this case is void for the same reason as that shown in the opinion in Cause No. 24364 against the appellant, 219 S.W.2d 1022.

For the reason there expressed, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 the Quarterly Report of Coinstar, Inc. (the“***Company***”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “***Form 10-Q***”), I, Brian V. Turner, Chief Financial Officerof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1)The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and 

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. 

Dated: May 8, 2007
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

CHANTHA J. TOK,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 595 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,613,923
<SECURITIES>                                 7,349,033
<RECEIVABLES>                                  931,199
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,928,308
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,991,528
<PP&E>                                       4,268,631
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,840,312)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,540,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,580,947
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        90,456
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,437,280
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,540,008
<SALES>                                      1,293,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,293,381
<CGS>                                        1,441,918
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,441,918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (2,967,608)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              58,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,913,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,913,082)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.32)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           4,562
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,884,949
<ALLOWANCES>                                   100,865
<INVENTORY>                                 11,755,568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,568,079
<PP&E>                                       2,413,084
<DEPRECIATION>                                 430,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              43,623,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,832,606
<BONDS>                                      8,370,088
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 20,925,000
<COMMON>                                         2,384
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,493,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                43,623,799
<SALES>                                     15,904,092
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,936,613
<CGS>                                        7,705,318
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,705,318
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,672,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             498,892
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,699
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             42,999
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    42,999
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Gene Therapy Program.                    

*Date:*                        February 8-10, 2000.                    

*Time:*                        7 p.m. to 12 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        Fitzpatrick Manhattan Hotel, 687 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Mary Bell, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Grants Review Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20892, 301/496-7978.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: February 3, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-2908 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted), S. James Miller, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of ImageWare Systems,Inc. (the ***“Company”***),and Wayne Wetherell, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each herebycertifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

**1.****                                                                                                        **The Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003, (the “***Report”***) fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and

 

**2.****                                                                                                        **The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition of the Company at the end of the periods covered by theReport and the results of operations of the Company for the periods covered bythe Report.

 

 
| Dated:                   | August 19,  2003         |                 |   |
|--------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|                     |                     |
| /s/  S. James Miller     |                     | /s/  Wayne Wetherell |   |
| S.  James Miller, Jr.    | Wayne  Wetherell         |
| Chief  Executive Officer | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to ImageWare Systems, Inc. and willbe retained by ImageWare Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### WILSON v. STATE.

No. 22488.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 28, 1943.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty, of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for an aggravated assault, punishment being a fine of fifty dollars.

No statement of facts or hills of exception are brought forward. In this condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### LAWSON v. STATE.

No. 25237.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

Appellant was charged by indictment with the offense of operating an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated,, the indictment alleging a prior conviction for such an offense and therefore charging a felony.

*980Upon a plea'of guilty, the jury assessed the punishment at 'eighteen months in the penitentiary and declined to recommend a suspension of sentence.

There are no bills of exception or objections to the court’s charge ; and the proceedings appear to be regular.

The statement of facts shows that in addition to his plea of guilty, the confession ■of appellant was offered and appellant testified as a witness admitting the facts necessary for a conviction.

Other evidence also showed that appellant was intoxicated; that he drove an automobile on the public highways while in that condition; that he sideswiped one car, collided with another car which was parked at the curb, and ran through a red traffic light. The prior judgment of conviction was offered in evidence, appellant’s identity being admitted.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to sustain the verdict, and no error is found.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### WEBBER v. STATE.

No. 24606.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

None on appeal.

J. C. Patterson, County Attorney, Benjamin, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State. •

■ BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is ■ from a conviction for a violation of the liquor law, with a fine of $400.

The record contains no statement of facts nor bills of exception. The proceedings appear regular in all things. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JORGE LUIS GOMEZ, III,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 346 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.