alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Grant of Extension of Time

 PAGE 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0632

IN THE MATTER OF 

C.R.F. and M.D.F.,

Youths in Need of Care.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

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

good cause appearing therefore, Appellant, K.J.F., is granted an extension of 

time until March 21, 2022 to prepare, serve, and file the Opening Brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 27 2022

01/27/2022
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ooOoo‐‐‐‐

Knight Adjustment Bureau,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Eric M. Sanchez,

Defendant and Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20110881‐CA

F I L E D

(March 8, 2012)

    2012 UT App 66

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, West Jordan Department, 110410814

The Honorable Charlene Barlow

Attorneys: Eric M. Sanchez, West Valley City, Appellant Pro Se

Jay V. Barney, Sandy, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and Christiansen.

¶1 Eric M. Sanchez appeals the district court’s order entered on August 31, 2011.

This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Sanchez does not oppose the motion for summary disposition.  We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2 Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal

must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the final order or judgment appealed.

See Utah R. App. P. 4(a).  If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App 299,

¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616.  If this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the

authority to dismiss the appeal.  See Varian‐Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570

(Utah Ct. App. 1989).
20110881‐CA 2

¶3 On August 31, 2011, the district court entered the final judgment in the

underlying matter.  On October 3, 2011, Sanchez filed his notice of appeal in the district

court.  Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the appeal.  See Serrato, 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7.  Thus, we are required to

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  See Varian‐Eimac, Inc., 767 P.2d at 570.

¶4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

____________________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________

Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
Indy	Drone	DJI	Phantom	3	Maintenance	Log

Tail	# N771JD Page: 1 of 1

Date Discrepancy Corrective	Action

10/2/15 Left	Rear	Propeller	cracked R&R	propeller,	ops	check	good

10/8/15 Firmware	version	1.4.1	required
#### BELL v. STATE.

No. 15165.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 2, 1932.

P. B. Ward, of Cleburne, for appellant.

Bloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, X

Conviction is for transporting intoxicating liquor, punishment being one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
EXHIBIT 99.1



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


In connection with the Annual Report of VSI Liquidation Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  each of Ed Strickland,
the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  and Joe M. Young, the
Acting  Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby certify,  pursuant to and for
purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge:

          (1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
               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/ ED STRICKLAND                           /s/ JOE M. YOUNG
----------------------------------          ----------------------------------
ED STRICKLAND                               JOE M. YOUNG
President and                               Acting Financial Officer
Chief Executive Officer                     September 25, 2002
September 25, 2002




1511373
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION ***

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of AirNet Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, William R. Sumser, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer, Secretaryand Vice President, Finance of the Company, certify, pursuant Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United Sates Code,, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of myknowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                             | /s/   William R. Sumser                                                                                  |   |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                             |                                                                                                                    |
|                             | William R. Sumser                                                                                                       |
|                             |                                                                                                                    |
|                             | Title:  Chief Financial  Officer, Treasurer,  Secretary and Vice President, Finance  (Principal Financial Officer) |
|                             |                                                                                                                    |
|                             |                                                                                                                    |
| Date:  August 14, 2003 |                                                                                                                    |

 

 

----

*This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b)under Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 ofChapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, and shall not be deemed“filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject tothe liability of that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to beincorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 orthe Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in such filing.

 

1

----
#### BORDER STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. NOBLE.

No. 10686.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 31, 1939.

*322Cofer & Cofer, of Austin, and Petsch & Usener, of Fredericksburg, for appellant.

Alex Jung, of Fredericksburg, for appel-lee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

Appellee has filed motion to dismiss the appeal, or, in the alternative, to correct recitals in the transcript of the record. The motion must be denied in both respects.

It appears from the motion, or at least we will assume therefrom for the purposes of this inquiry, that when judgment was rendered below appellant’s counsel gave timely notice of appeal, but in the notice designated the “Court of Civil Appeals of the Third District at Austin” as the court to which the appeal was returnable. We assume, further, -for present purposes, that the decree as originally drawn and approved below recited the notice in the form first given, but later, under the direction of the trial judge, the decree was corrected so as to name this Court as the forum of the appeal. This motion includes a prayer that the decree be restored to the original form.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss is based upon the contention that since the notice of appeal designated the Austin Court instead of this Court as the depository of the appeal, the notice ■ was void and could confer no potential jurisdiction upon this Court. The contention is without merit.

The statute provides that appeal may be taken by the simple and single process of giving timely notice thereof “in open court.” Art. 2253, R.S.1925, as amended by Act of 1927, 40th Leg. p. 21, Ch. 15, § 1, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 2253.

The statute also provides that appeal,in a- case of this nature from the District Court of Gillespie County is returnable only to this Court, wherefore, the designation of a different Court of Civil Appeals in the notice of appeal would be mere surplusage and without effect upon the validity of the notice. 3 Tex.Jur. p. 289, § 193; Martin v. Rutherford, Tex.Civ.App., 153 S.W. 156; Slaughter v. Slaughter, Tex.Civ.App., 276 S.W. 724.

As to that phase of the motion asking for a correction of the decree, the questioned recitál is immaterial as not affecting the jurisdiction of this Court over the appeal; and, moreover, could be corrected by the trial court, only, and not by this Court.

Motion to dismiss appeal and to correct transcript is overruled.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Knoll, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Andrew B. Cogan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



| | a. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | b. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 11, 2009



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Andrew B. Cogan    
|Andrew B. Cogan        
|Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 31.2

I,
Robert P. Vogels, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Golden Minerals Company;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

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

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f))
for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors:



Date: August 7, 2009/s/ ROBERT P. VOGELS Robert P. Vogels Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### CAMERON v. STATE.

No. 16420.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 21, 1934.

Rehearing Denied March 14, 1934.

See, also, 68 S.W.(2d) 499.

R. O. Cameron, in pro. per.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of possessing a forged instrument with the intent to pass the same, and his punishment assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

The testimony adduced upon the trial shows that on or about the 25th day of March, A. D. 1933, the defendant entered the store of Brookshire Bros, at Mineóla, Tex., at night, and undertook to cash a check which read as follows, to wit: “Mineóla, Texas. March 25, 1933. First National Bank of Mineóla. Pay to order of R. C. Cameron Twenty-five and 35/100 Dollars $25.35. Mrs. Paul C. Smith.” The testimony .further shows that, after the defendant was arrested, there was. found in his possession another check which read as follows: “Mineóla, Texas. March 25, 1933. First National Bank of Mineóla. Pay to the order of R. C. Cameron Twenty-five and 35/100 Dollars $25.35. Mrs. Paul Smith.” Mrs. Paul D. Smith testified that about the last of March, 1933, on a Saturday, the defendant came to her home selling hosiery for the Real Silk Company. He had samples. She did not purchase any hosiery from him. He came there twice; the first time about 9 o’clock in the morning and then he came back at noon. She did not execute-a check to him for $25.35 or any other amount; that she did not sign and deliver to him a check signed Mrs. Paul C. Smith for $25.35, nor did she execute and deliver to him a check dated March 25, 1933, drawn against the First National Bank.of Mineóla, Tex., payable to R. C. Cameron in the sum of $25.35 and signed Mrs. Paul Smith, noi-did she authorize anybody to execute such check or checks. By the cashier of the First National Bank of Mineóla the state proved, that no person by the name of Mrs. Paul C. Smith carried an account with said bank. Ifr was further proven by the state by several witnesses that to their knowledge there was no person living in Mineóla by the name of Mrs. Paul C. Smith. The appellant did not testify.

There are no bills of exception in the record. The indictment seems to be sufficient, under the authority of Verner v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 112, 35 S.W.(2d) 428, and the evidence seems to support the verdict of conviction.

It is therefore ordered that the judgment of the trial court be, and the same is, in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judg*96es of the Court of Criminal- Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Appellant has filed in his own behalf a well written motion for rehearing, accompanied by copies of documents which have been examined and their contents noted. We are not led, however, to believe from any of them that the opinion of affirmance in this case was not fully sustained. We think to the contrary.

The motion for rehearing will be overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1995-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         2,111,604
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  47,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,187,990
<PP&E>                                         740,102
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (113,971)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,814,121
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,096
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,811,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,814,121
<SALES>                                        111,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               203,570
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  61,429<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                111,972
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            111,972
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   111,972
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 13, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00138

- CR

Homero HERRERA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 11

- 07314

- MCR

Honorable Cynthia L. Muniz, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The State’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. The State’s brief is due

July 22, 2016.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 13th day of July, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### ZICKEFOOSE v. BLEDSOE et al.

No. 5230.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Amarillo.

Dec. 9, 1940.

Elkins & Elkins, of Lubbock, for appellant.

G. E. Lockhart,'of Lubbock, for appellee A. Sansom.

W. R. Porter, of Lubbock, for appellee W. L. Cone.

FOLLEY, Justice.

The appellant has failed to file a brief in this case and no excuse is offered -or good cause shown for such failure.

The appellees request that we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

*906Finding no fundamental error in the record the judgment is affirmed. Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., Tex.Com.App., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811.
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULE

eFax.com, Inc.:

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement 
No. 333-39815 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-58993 on Form 
S-3 of our report dated February 8, 1999 (April 9, 1999 as to Note 14), 
appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of eFax.com, Inc. (formerly 
JetFax, Inc.) and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 1998.

     Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our 
aforementioned report also included the financial statement schedule of 
eFax.com, Inc., listed in Item 14(a). This financial statement schedule is 
the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to 
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, such financial 
statement schedule, when considered in relation to the basic financial 
statements taken as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the 
information set forth therein.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
April 9, 1999

                                      56

<PAGE>    97
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-6912-1] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement and request for public comment. 

# SUMMARY:

                        In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement to resolve a claim against Estate of Virginia M. Nelson. The proposed settlement concerns the federal government's past response costs at the Tokeland Cow Dip Pit CERCLA Site, Pacific County, Washington. The settlement requires the settling party, the Estate of Virginia M. Nelson, to pay $57,111.55 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, office at 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Mary Shillcutt, Regional Hearing Clerk, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone number (206) 553-2429. Comments should                               ( print page 76260)                            reference the “Tokeland Cow Dip Pit CERCLA Site” and EPA Docket No. CERCLA-10-97-0043 and should be addressed to Ms. Shillcutt at the above address.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Byrne, Assistant Regional Counsel, EPA Region 10, Office of Regional Counsel, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, telephone number (206) 553-0050. 

Dated: November 21, 2000. 

Charles E. Findley, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 00-30909 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U