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

Appellate case name: In the Interest of A

. L

. P.

, a Child

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 9

- 00 144

- CV

Trial court case number: 1 8

- DCV

- 25244 3

Trial court: 505 th District Court of Fort Bend County

P roceeding pro se, a ppellant, C.J.M. , ha s filed a notice of appeal of the trial court’s

final decree of termination

. On January 31, 2019, appellant requested preparation of a reporter’s record of a hearing conducted on January 22, 2019 on Petition er’s Motion to Waive Mediation and for Trial Setting

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.6(b), 35.3(b). However,

t he reporter’s record filed in this Court does not include a record of th at hearing

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35. 3 (b).

Accordingly, the court reporter is order ed to prepare and file a reporter’s

record of the January 22, 2019 hearing in this appeal within 10 days of the date of
this order

. No extensions of time will be granted

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 28.4(b)(2), 35.3(c)

. At the time the record is filed with this C ourt, the court reporter shall provide a copy of the reporter’s record of the January 22, 2019 hearing to appellant at the address

he has provided this Court :

Curtis McGuire #0022622 1 Fort Bend County Jail 1410 Williams Way Blvd. Richmond, T X 77469

. The co urt reporter shall certify to the Clerk of this Court, within 1 4 days of the date of this order, the date upon which delivery of the record to the appellant is made.

Appellant’s brief remains due on June 3, 2019.

1 Because this appeal involves the termination of the parent

- child relationship, this Court is required to bring the appeal to final disposition wit hin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal was filed, so far as reasonably possible. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in Tex. Gov’t. Code Ann., tit. 2, subtit. F app.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s / Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: _ May 21, 2019

___
#### Schroeder, Respondent, vs. Kroger Grocery & Baking Company, Appellant.

*668For the appellant: *Jeffris, Mouat, Oestreich, Wood & Cunningham*of Janesville.

For the respondent: *Nolan, Dougherty, Grubb & Ryan*of Janesville.

*By the Court.*

Judgment affirmed.
#### PETER S. WILLIAMS v. R. T. WEAVER *et al.*

*Amendment*— Process.

The Supreme Court has power to allow an officer, to whom its process has been delivered for execution, to amend his return thereof by the correction of errors caused by inadvertance or honest mistake.

MotioN for leave to amend return upon execution, beard after due notice and upon affidavits at September Term, 1888, of the Supreme Court.

In this case an execution was issued from this Court, directed and delivered to the Sheriff of the County of Hertford, made returnable to the October Term of 1886 thereof. The Sheriff failed to note thereon the date of its delivery to him as required by the statute. *(The Code,*§ 100.) In his return of the same, by inadvertance he set forth that he did not *2collect the sum of $8.40, which sum, as stated in the return, *“*was deducted and allowed by Attorney General,” whereas he should have said, “was deducted and allowed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”

The present application is made by the Sheriff to be allowed to amend his return, so as to specify on the execution the time when it went into his hands; and also that he failed to collect the sum of $8.40, as therein required, because it “ was deducted and allowed by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.”

*Mr. B. B. Winborne,*for the Sheriff.

No counsel, *contra.*

Merrimon, J.,

(after stating the case.) The power of this Court to allow the Sheriff or other officer to amend and correct his return of its process as to errors occasioned by mere inadvertence or honest mistake, so as to make it speak the •truth as to what was done, or omitted to be done, by the •officer in its execution, is essential and inherent, but it should be exercised with care and much caution. The Court should be fully satisfied that the application to amend is made in good faith, and that the proposed amendment is warranted by the facts. It is ever the purpose of the law, in the course of its application, to ascertain and establish the truth in its judgments and proceedings, and to this end its Courts, in their nature, have ample power, which they will exercise as far as they can consistently with rules of just procedure and the rights of parties. Such power has oftentimes been exercised here, and the frequent exercise of the like power by the Superior Courts has been scrutinized and affirmed by many decisions of this Court. *Smith*v. *Daniel,*3 Murph., 128; *Davidson*v. *Cowan,*1 Dev., 304; *Purcell*v. *McFarland,*1 Ired., 34; *Dickinson*v. *Lippitt,*5 Ired., 560; *Williams*v. *Sharpe,*70 N. C., 582; *Peebles*v. *Newsom,*74 N. C., 473; *Walters*v. *Moore,*90 N. C., 41.

*3The evidence fully satisfies us that the Sheriff omitted to mark the entry on the execution, and made the mistake in his return, which he asks leave to correct, by excusable in-ad vertance. The entry and correction cannot prejudice the substantial rights of any party.

Leave, therefore, is granted to make the amendments.
#### Estate of Steindorff: Yates, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Doar *et al.,*Respondents.

For the appellant: *Tom L. Yates*of Amery.

For the respondents: *Doar & Knowles*of New Richmond, and *E. Nelton*of Balsam Lake.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
#### Bramman, Appellant, vs. Teutonia Recreation Company, Respondent.

*March 9*

April *13, 1943.*

For the appellant there was a brief by *Roy O. Conen*and *Nathaniel D. Rothstein,*both of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Mr. Rothstein'.*

For the respondent there was a brief by *Burns & Mehigan*of Milwaukee, and oral argument by *Irving P. Mehigan.*

Fowler, J.

The action is to recover for personal injuries. There was a jury trial. At the close of the plaintiff’s testi*625mony the defendant moved for a nonsuit. • The motion was granted and judgment was duly entered thereon. After the appeal was perfected the plaintiff moved for an extension of time in which to serve a bill of exceptions. The court entered an order extending that time. From that order the defendant duly appealed. That appeal was heard and the order reversed. See opinion in *Bramman v. Teutonia Recreation Co., ante,*p. 620, 9 N. W. (2d) 113. The reversal of that order nullifies the bill of exceptions settled pursuant thereto. The only question presented on appeal from a judgment of nonsuit is whether the evidence presents a jury question. The evidence not being properly before us we cannot say that it does and the judgment must be affirmed.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02776**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 02776\02776_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02776\02776_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02776\02776_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02776\02776_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02776\02776_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02776\02776_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02776\Certification Statement Plant ID 02776.pdf Plant certification statement x 

### 02776\Supplemental Documents\02776_MAP 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02776\Supplemental Documents\02776_MAP 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 02776\Supplemental Documents\02776_WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database
.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.7B


                            NOTE SECURED BY MORTGAGE

DATE: Effective December 18, 2000

MAKER: Mike Reiff

PAYEE: Verilink Corporation

PLACE FOR PAYMENT: 127 Jetplex Circle, Madison, AL 35758

PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Four Hundred Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-Six and
                  23/100 Dollars ($409,836.23)

ANNUAL INTEREST RATE ON UNPAID
PRINCIPAL: The Interest Rate on this Promissory Note shall be 0%.

TERMS OF PAYMENT:

         A. Maker shall repay the principal of the note before December 18,
2007.

         B. If Maker sells the property securing this Note for less than
$409,836.23, after deducting costs of sale, the principal balance of this Note
shall be reduced by such amount.

SECURITY FOR PAYMENT:

         A. Date: December 18, 2000

         B. Debtor: Mike Reiff

         C. Secured Party: Payee herein;

         D. County Where Collateral located: Madison County, Alabama;

         E. Collateral: See Legal Description attached as Exhibit "A"

         Maker promises to pay to the order of Payee at the place for payment
and according to the terms of payment the principal amount stated above. All
unpaid amounts shall be due by the maturity date.

         On default in the payment of this Note or in the performance of any
obligation in any instrument securing or collateral to it, this Note and all
obligations in all instruments securing or collateral to it shall become
immediately due at the election of Payee. Maker and each surety, endorser, and
guarantor waive all exemptions to the



                                      -1-
<PAGE>   2

extent permitted by law, diligence in collection, demands for payment,
presentations for payment, notices of intention to accelerate maturity, notice
of acceleration, protest, notice of protest, and all other notices.

         If this Note or any instrument securing or collateral to it is given to
an attorney for collection or enforcement, or if suit is brought for collection
or enforcement, or if it is collected or enforced through probate, bankruptcy,
or other judicial proceeding, then Maker shall pay Payee reasonable attorney's
fees in addition to other amounts due.

         Nothing in this Note shall authorize the collection of interest in
excess of the highest rate allowed by law.

         Each Maker is responsible for the entire amount of the Note.

         The terms Maker and Payee and other nouns and pronouns include the
plural if more than one. The terms Maker and Payee also include their respective
heirs, personal representatives, and assigns.

         Maker agrees to pay all costs incurred in recording the mortgage
hereinabove described. In the event Payee pays such amount, said amount shall be
added to the principal of this Note.


                                                /s/ Mike Reiff
                                            ------------------------
                                                Mike Reiff




                                      -2-
#### Will of Quick: Burton, Administrator, Appellant, vs. Quick, Executor, Respondent.

For the appellant: *Easton Johnson*of Whitewater.

For the respondent: *Rogers & Vance*of Fort Atkinson.

*By the Court.*

Order affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Cardo Medical, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Andrew Brooks,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
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/ ANDREW  A. BROOKS
                      Andrew A. BrooksChief Executive Officer
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  March 30, 2009

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7767

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BRIAN STEPP, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-24, CA-00-862-2) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: May 3, 2001Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Stepp, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Brian Stepp seeks to appeal an order of the magistrate judge denying his request for a copy of the transcript of his criminalproceedings. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2845

___________________________

In re: John Patrick Raynor

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor

------------------------------

John Patrick Raynor

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellant

v.

Dennis P. Walker

lllllllllllllllllllllAppellee

 ____________

The United States Bankruptcy

 Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit

 ____________

 Submitted: May 19, 2020

Filed: May 22, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before KELLY, WOLLMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
John Raynor appeals after the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the

bankruptcy court’s1 order dismissing his adversarial complaint as barred by res

judicata. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments on appeal,

we find no basis for reversal. See Williams v. King (In re King), 744 F.3d 565, 569

(8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir.

1990) (res judicata bars relitigation of claim if prior judgment was rendered by court

of competent jurisdiction, prior judgment was final judgment on merits, and same

cause of action and same parties or their privies were involved in both cases). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

1The Honorable Thomas L. Saladino, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy

Court for the District of Nebraska.

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 37 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 37

     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
 restriction on payment for certain hospital discharges to post-acute 
    care imposed by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 19, 1999

 Mr. Grassley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal the 
 restriction on payment for certain hospital discharges to post-acute 
    care imposed by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF RESTRICTION ON MEDICARE PAYMENT FOR CERTAIN 
              HOSPITAL DISCHARGES TO POST-ACUTE CARE.

    (a) In General.--Section 1886(d)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)), as amended by section 4407 of the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (I)(ii), by striking ``not taking in 
        account the effect of subparagraph (J),'', and
            (2) by striking subparagraph (J).
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                    RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In  connection  with  the  Quarterly Report of Fantatech Inc. (the "Company") on
Form  10-QSB  for  the  quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on  the  date  hereof  (the "Report"), I,
Guangwei  Liang,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Rule  13a-14(b)  and  18  U.S.C.  Sec.  1350,  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.


Date: May 24, 2005                          By: /s/ Guangwei Liang
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Guangwei  Liang
                                            Chief  Executive  Officer
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

HonorableGee. H. She,;urd Comptroller **of Public**  **Acoounte. bust**  **in,** Taxtim Dear Sir: /

OplnlonNo. O-184, ~ '.

yourauthority t<J ent or a olalrr, drawn agalnft *a or **intrurdnoo**

pramlume. Inlonp&o.o-e01 to Dr. held that a Ilra ln-

~e~~a/ee

no renaon to dlrrerentlate the ruling of that oplnlou with the facts prosentcd to uo in your lottar. .e am enolooin~ a oopy or opinion lie. 04201, above referred to, and VI@

### bdibve that the law a8 bx>resaed In that **Opinion** is appil0abl0 to the **hot8** you relate.

im are not horeln dcolarlncthe ;,urposso tar v&loh L legurtmnt **any ax?end**  **its** contlnient **iunda, but**  **in the** Battar of **hmur~.nce** since the policy or':,tic st.lte hrre been l **xproamd** by the Leglsluturo,we do hole thnt in the abtlence or a 8peoIrIcatisropriatlon for thtlt**purpose,** you are not l ithorlrtd tu is,uc wurranttl for Lhe jaymantof Lnaur~noe ,pntituapI. **Yourti very**  **truly**

:do:risC.

Assiattrnt
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Roy Israel, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of clickNsettle.com,
Inc. (the "registrant");

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)) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's second fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

            (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and

            (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Date: February 11, 2005


/s/ Roy Israel
-----------------------------------------------------
Roy Israel - Chairman of the Board, CEO and President


                                       26
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30621 Conference Calendar

DANNY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-2216

- - - - - - - - - - February 21, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Danny Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant United Parcel Service, Inc., as to his state-law claims alleging wrongful termination and defamation. The district court held that Williams’ claims were preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act.
Pro se briefs must be liberally construed, see Haines v.
Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), but pro se parties are still required to brief their arguments in order to preserve them. See Price v. Digital Equipment Corp. , 846 F.2d 1026, 1028 (5th Cir.No. 01-30621 -2- 1988). Williams’ arguments on appeal are conclusory, and the two legal authorities cited by Williams are not relevant to the instant case because they involve federal-law claims rather than state-law claims. Williams has cited no relevant authority and has not briefed the only appealable issue, i.e., whether the district court properly denied his claims as preempted under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Accordingly, we find no error in the district court’s disposition of his instant claims.
AFFIRMED.