alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 493

- C V

Style: Andrew Whallon

v

. Candlelight Trails 1 Association

Date motion filed * : June 14 , 201 9

Type of motion: Motion to Supplement Clerk’s Record

Party filing motion: Appell ee

Document to be filed:

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 T he Court will not grant additional motions to extend time absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot )

 Other: _____________________________________

We strike appellant’s Motion to Supplement the Clerk’s Record because said motion is deficient for failing

to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 9. 5 ( e) , 10.1(a)(5) . The Court

will consider a Motion to Supplement the Clerk’s Record that complies with the certificate of service and

certificate of conference requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id

.

Judge ’ s signature: /s/ Sherry Radack

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: __ June 27, 2019

____
Case 3:22-cr-00378-N Document 72-4 Filed 03/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 861
ORDER Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT HOPKINS, III, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-00706-E

§

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant United States Department of Defense’s (“Defendant”) 

Emergency Motion for Extension of Time (the “Motion to Extend”) requesting an extension of the 

deadline for its motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 29). Defendant requests a 54-day 

extension of the deadline to file its motion for summary judgment because: 

In the course of preparing that declaration and reviewing the underlying 

manuscript, agency counsel became aware that the agency’s reviewer had 

inadvertently failed to redact several passages that appear to contain classified or 

otherwise protected information. The agency has since determined that those 

passages do contain classified or otherwise protected information that, if released, 

would cause significant harm to national security and foreign relations.

. . . 

Given the significance of this error, the agency has decided that it needs to review 

the entire book again to ensure that no other classified or otherwise protected 

material is contained in the book. The agency is committed to doing this re-review 

on an expedited basis—specifically, within 45 days. The Department will then issue 

a revised determination to Dr. Hopkins, and requests permission to move for 

summary judgment 9 days later, for a total of 54 days.

A scheduling order “may be modified only for good cause.” FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4). The 

Fifth Circuit has explained:

There are four relevant factors to consider when determining whether there is good 

cause under Rule 16(b)(4): “(1) the explanation for the failure to timely [comply

with the scheduling order]; (2) the importance of the [modification]; (3) potential

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 31 Filed 08/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 481
ORDER Page 2 of 2

prejudice in allowing the [modification]; and (4) the availability of a continuance

to cure such prejudice.”

Springboards To Educ., Inc. v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 912 F.3d 805, 819 (5th Cir. 2019)

(alterations in original) (citations omitted), as revised (Jan. 29, 2019), as revised (Feb. 14, 2019). 

The Court concludes that Defendant has established that good cause exists to extend the deadline 

for its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to 

Extend. (ECF No. 29). Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment no later than

Wednesday October 4, 2023, at 5:00 pm, central standard time. 

SO ORDERED: August 10, 2023. 

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 31 Filed 08/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 482
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his official 

capacity as Attorney General of the United 

States, et al., 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 

4:22-cv-00691-O 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

 Intervenor–plaintiffs Not An LLC d/b/a JSD Supply (“JSD”) and Polymer80, Inc. 

(“Polymer80”) have jointly filed an unopposed motion to stay the deadline set forth in Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 54 to file a motion for costs and attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 238). The Court 

GRANTS JSD’s and Polymer80’s joint motion. The Court hereby ORDERS that JSD’s and 

Polymer80’s deadlines to file any Rule 54 motions for costs and attorneys’ fees are stayed until 14 

days after the final resolution of Defendants’ appeal from this Court’s Opinion and Order (ECF 

No. 227) and Final Judgment (ECF No. 231). 

SO ORDERED this [date]. 

 

Reed O’Connor 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 240-1 Filed 07/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4924
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Valrico Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-QB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerry
L. Ball, Executive Vice President and CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as enacted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:



| | 1. |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Jerry L. Ball
EVP / CFO
August 14, 2003
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ALAN MOON, Petitioner-Appellant,

v. W. J. THOMPSON, in his official No. 97-6247 capacity as Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Morgantown, West Virginia, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-158-1) Submitted: September 29, 1998 Decided: October 22, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Alan Moon, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Alan Moon appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. Moon asserts that the Bureau of Prisons erred in finding him ineligible for a sentence reduction under18 U.S.C.A. § 3621(e)(2) (West Supp. 1998), based on his prior conviction for a violent offense. According to Moon, his firearm conviction, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West Supp. 1998), wasa nonviolent offense and should not have disqualified him from consideration for a reduction. In support, Moon points to 28 C.F.R.§ 550.58 (1995), which defines the term "nonviolent offense" by reference to the definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) (1994). The definition in § 924(c)(3) would not includeMoon's firearm offense as it did not involve the use or threat of physical force against another. However, while Moon's appeal was pending, the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") adopted a revised § 550.58, which abandons reference to§ 924(c)(3) and explicitly includes possession of a firearm in its determination of disqualifying offenses. See 28 C.F.R. § 550.58 (1997). Accordingly, Moon's case is governed by our r ecent decision in Pelissero v. Thompson , ___ F.3d ___, 1998 WL 559663 (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1998), where we held that revised § 550.58 applied to cases pending on the date of enactment. We further found that revised § 550.58 was a valid exercise of the BOP's discretion under § 3621(e). Pelissero renders most of Moon's contentions moot. Moon's remaining claims are meritless. We therefore affirm the district court's denial of Moon's § 2241 petition on the reasoning in Pelissero . We grant Moon's motion to consider newly-discovered caselaw. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 396

- CV



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.N.S., A CHILD

___________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, S .R. 1

, file d an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at

Law No. 5 of Nueces County, Texas, in cause number 09

- 60641

- 5

. On October 24,

2011 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the clerk's record in the above cause
was originally due on October 2 1, 2011 , and that the deputy district clerk, Tiffany Garza

, had notified this Court that appellant failed to make arrangements for paymen t of the

1 In appeals from cases involving the termination of parental rights, the rules of appellate procedure require the use of an alias to refer to a minor, A and if necessary to protect the minor = s identity, to the minor = s parent or other family member.” Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.2

clerk's record. The Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could

be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3, 42.3(b),(c).
Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not correcte d within ten days from the date
of receipt of this notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Appellant has failed to respond to this Court = s notice. Accordingly, the appeal is

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(b), (c).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 26th day of January , 20 1 2

.
September 10 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

BRUCE LEE TAYLOR , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 00614

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. The record indicates that the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order thi s decision certified below for observance.
#### CAVENDER v. STATE.

No. 26170.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant. George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was assessed a penalty of three years m the penitentiary upon conviction of the offense of murder without malice.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

IN THE LTNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL JONES.

Plaintifl

ESTHER GORMAN, E/,4/,,

Defendants. Civil Action No . 3 :22-CY - I 87 5 -C

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation ofthe United

States Magistrate Judge therein advising the Court that this civil action should be dismissed

without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order.r

The Court has reviewed the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for clear error

and finds none. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation

are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated

therein, the Court ORDERS that this civil action be DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing

Time is DENIED AS MOOT.

of October, 2022.

4/??'12'7

R,C GS

SENIOR TED STATES DIS CT JUDGE

rPlaintiffhas failed to file objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation and the time to do so has now expired. The Court notes that he did

file a Motion for Extension of Time to pay the $402.00 in filing fees for the above-styled

and-numbered civil action. He may re-file his complaint once he has paid the filing fee

Plaintiff s Motion to Extend

so oRDERED ,hi" 4{;y

(

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 9 Filed 10/04/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 29
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 178

Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, November

10, 1993, to Monday, November 15, 1993, and an adjournment or

recess of the Senate from Wednesday, November 10, 1993, to Tuesday,

November 16, 1993.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 10, 1993

Mr. GEPHARDT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

considered and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday,

November 10, 1993, to Monday, November 15, 1993,

and an adjournment or recess of the Senate from

Wednesday, November 10, 1993, to Tuesday, November

16, 1993.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That when the House adjourns on Wednes3 day, November 10, 1993, it stand adjourned until noon

4 on Monday, November 15, 1993, or until noon on the sec5 ond day after Members are notified to reassemble pursu6 ant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever

7 occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or ad-
2

HCON 178 ATH

1 journs at the close of business on Wednesday, November

2 10, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by the majority lead3 er or his designee, in accordance with this resolution, it

4 stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Tuesday, No5 vember 16, 1993, or at such time as may be specified by

6 the majority leader or his designee in the motion to recess

7 or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members

8 are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this

9 concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

10 SEC. 2. The Speaker of the House and the majority

11 leader of the Senate, acting jointly after consultation with

12 the minority leader of the House and the minority leader

13 of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and

14 the Senate, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in their

15 opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Chad A. Stelzig, Interim President, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1.The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  /s/ Chad A. StelzigChad A. StelzigInterim President, Interim Chief Executive OfficerAugust 08, 2016
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID 98
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID 99
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID 100
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID 101
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID 102
Case 3:22-cv-02174-K-BT Document 22 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID 103
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             250                     250
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,154                   4,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                       183                     183
<INVENTORY>                                     35,298                  35,298
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,547                  40,547
<PP&E>                                           2,187                   2,187
<DEPRECIATION>                                     503                     503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  42,255                  42,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,084                  15,084
<BONDS>                                          3,498                   3,498
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             7                       7
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,673                  23,673
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    42,255                  42,255
<SALES>                                          6,944                  22,832
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,944                  22,832
<CGS>                                            4,828                  15,618
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,828                  15,618
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,123                   3,740
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 310                     604
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    683                   2,870
<INCOME-TAX>                                       274                   1,152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                409                   1,718
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       409                   1,718
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06                     .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .25
        

</TABLE>
Special Inspector General for 

TARP

FY 2015 

Capital Investment Plan
Bureau: DO 

Investment Name: SIGTARP Equipment 

Type of Investment: Major Non-IT Investment 

Description: 

SIGTARP's non-IT investments include technical surveillance equipment. The Investigation 

Division requires specialized surveillance equipment to conduct criminal investigations in 

cooperation with the FBI, IRS-CI and state/local law enforcement. 

Investment Anticipated Outlay: (In Millions of $): 

Type PY-1 and Prior PY

2013

CY 

2014

BY 

2015

BY+1 

2016

BY+2 

2017

BY+3 

2018 BY+4 and Beyond Total 

DME Sub Total (Including Gov FTE) Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

O&M Sub Total (Including Gov FTE) Costs 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 

Total Cost (Including Gov FTE) 0.34 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 

Total Gov FTE Cost 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Number of FTE represented by costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Summary of Purpose, Goals, and Benefits: 

SIGTARP's non-IT investments include technical surveillance equipment. The Investigations 

Division requires specialized surveillance equipment in order to conduct criminal investigations 

in cooperation with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal 

Investigation, other federal agencies, and state/local law enforcement agencies. This 

specialized equipment ensures officer/agent safety to obtain evidence for prosecution while 

allowing interoperability with equipment used by the other agencies. 

Requirements/ Benefits/ Mandates: 

Legislative Mandate: N/A 

Audit Finding or Material Weakness: N/A 

Agency Strategic Plan / Annual Performance Plan: N/A 

Presidential Priority: N/A 

Other Requirement: N/A 

Planned Objectives and Accomplishments: 

This specialized equipment ensures officer/agent safety to obtain evidence for prosecution while 

allowing interoperability with equipment used by the other agencies.