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 S

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 5

- 0 0 902

- CR & 01

- 1 5

- 0 0903

- CR

Style: Roel David Gonzalez v. The State of Texas

Date motion s filed * : J u n e 2 0

, 201 6

Type of motion s : Second and Final Motion f o r E xten sion of T ime to F ile Brief s

Party filing motion s : Appellant ’s Counsel

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief s

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: April 1 , 201 6

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due D ate: J u n e 2 0 , 201 6

Date Requested: J u l y 18 , 201 6 (101 days from original deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document s are to be filed, document s due: J u ly 18 , 201 6

.  No further extensions of time will be granted

.  Denied

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

 Other: _____________________________________

On April 8 , 201 6 , the Clerk of this Court granted appellant’s fir s t extension request

which sought 8 0 days from April 1, 2016 until J une 2 0 , 2016, to file his briefs, with no

further extensions to be granted . Because appellant’s second extension motion

provides extraordinary circumstances explaining the need for a final extension, this

extension is granted , but counsel is warned that no further extensions will be

granted

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38. 6 ( d )

. Accordingly, if appellant’s brief s

are not filed by Jul y 18 , 2016

, the Cou rt will abate this appeal for a late

- brief hearing.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2)

.

Judge’ s signature:

_

/s/ Laura Carter Higley



Date: June 23, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q for quarter ending September 30, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         $13,602
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  $19,634
<ALLOWANCES>                                      $993
<INVENTORY>                                     $6,603
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               $56,825
<PP&E>                                        $421,520
<DEPRECIATION>                                 $58,392
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                $476,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $53,717
<BONDS>                                       $231,659
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          $120
<OTHER-SE>                                    $137,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  $476,918
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $176,550
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 $142,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  $581
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  $296
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             $14,180
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                $19,170
<INCOME-TAX>                                    $7,734
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            $11,436
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               ($1,943)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    $9,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .82
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas January 24, 2023 No. 04-22-00476-CR EX PARTE Alexis Pantoja VASQUEZ From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10420-CR Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Pending before the court is appellant’s request to file supplemental briefing. We hereby GRANT appellant’s request and ORDER that appellant’s supplemented appellant’s brief is accepted as filed. It is ORDERED that the State may file a brief in response to appellant’s supplemented appellant’s brief within twenty days of the date of this order.
It is so ORDERED on January 24, 2023. PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
#### S. A. Hoyt v. A. U. Quint, Appellant.

Guaranty: absolute liability. One who was not a party to a note signed the guaranty written on the back of the note: “I guaranty payment. Demand, notice and notice of protest waived ” Held, that the guaranty was absolute, and the guarantor could not plead want of notice and demand, and lack of diligence on the part of the payee in collecting from the payor, as a defense.

*Appeal from Carroll District Court.*— Hon. Z. A. Church, Judge.

Saturday, May 14, 1898.

Action on the guaranty of a promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant *appeals.*—

Affirmed.

*Geo. W. Bowen*for appellant.

*F. M. Powers*for appellee.

Ladd, J.

— The petition, filed August 12, 1896, alleges that J. M. and Lulu Boyce executed their promissory note, August 13, 1893, to S. A. Hoyt, for the sum of three hundred and sixty-eight dollar's and eight-four cents, payable one year after date, and that defendant guaranteed the payment thereof in these words indorsed on the back thereof: “I guaranty payment. Demand, protest, and notice of protest waived. A. U. Quint.” In his answer, filed April 3, 1897, the defendant averred that nearly two years before the beginning of this suit he requested the agent of plaintiff to collect the note of the maker, who at that time was solvent and had property subject to execution; that the plaintiff neglected to do so, and exercised no diligence in securing payment from Boyce; that since that time Boyce has *444become insolvent, and said note cannot be collected; and that by reason thereof the defendant is released. The plaintiff demurred to this answer on the ground that the “defendant became an absolute guarantor for the payment of this note if not paid by the principal, and waived all conditions which might limit his liability as a guarantor. The court sustained the demurrer, and, defendant having elected to stand on the ruling, judgment was entered as prayed.

I. The guaranty was absolute. *Marvin v. Adamson,*11 Iowa, 371; *Bank v. Gaylord,*34 Iowa, 246; 1 Daniel, Negotiable Instruments, section 1769; Brandt, Suretyship, section 170. The guarantor of a promissory note is not entitled to have a demand made, as it is the duty of the maker to find the note and pay it at maturity. *Sabin v. Harris,*12 Iowa, 87; *Reynolds v. Douglass,*12 Pet. 497; *Allen v. Rightmere,*20 Johns. 365. The defendant became absolutely liable upon the failure of Boyce to make payment. If entitled to. notice, he was not discharged by want thereof, unless he suffered some detriment. But notice was expressly waived, and thereby he assumed to protect himself. The guaranty in such a case is as binding as an original promise, and the guarantor cannot plead lack of diligence as a defense. Harvester *Co. v. Tomlinson,*58 Iowa, 129; *Fuller v. Same,*58 Iowa, 112; *Wagon Co. v. Swezey,*52 Iowa, 391; Id.,63 Iowa, 520; *Cobb v. Little,*11 Am. Dec. 72; *Bloom v. Warder,*13 Neb. 476 (14 N. W. Rep. 395); *Hungerfrod v. O’Brien,*37 Minn. 306 (34 N. W. Rep. 161. — Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3194 Referred in House (RFH)]

  2d Session
                                S. 3194

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 25, 2000

             Referred to the Committee on Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, as the 
                   ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ROBERT S. WALKER POST OFFICE.

    (a) In General.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 431 North George Street in Millersville, Pennsylvania, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Robert S. Walker Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Robert S. 
Walker Post Office.

            Passed the Senate October 24 (legislative day, September 
      22), 2000.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3173

To improve the implementation of the environmental streamlining provisions

of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 5 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. INHOFE, Mr.

THOMAS, Mr. BOND, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. L. CHAFEE, Mr.

BAUCUS, Mr. MOYNIHAN, and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill;

which was read the first time

A BILL

To improve the implementation of the environmental streamlining provisions of the Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st Century.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Environmental

5 Streamlining Improvement Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. RULEMAKING.

7 (a) PUBLICATION OF REVISED NOTICES OF PRO8 POSED RULEMAKING.—Taking into consideration the

9 comments submitted concerning the proposed rulemaking
2

S 3173 IS

1 entitled ‘‘Statewide Transportation Planning; Metropoli2 tan Transportation Planning’’, and the proposed rule3 making entitled ‘‘NEPA and Related Procedures for

4 Transportation Decisonmaking, Protection of Public

5 Parks, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic

6 Sites’’, notice of which was published on May 25, 2000

7 (65 Fed. Reg. 33922, 33960), the Secretary of Transpor8 tation shall publish in the Federal Register for a period

9 of public comment of not less than 120 days revised no10 tices of proposed rulemaking—

11 (1) to implement the planning and environ12 mental streamlining provisions of sections 1203 and

13 1204 (and the amendments made by those sections)

14 and 1308 and 1309 of the Transportation Equity

15 Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 170, 231); and

16 (2) to address the other matters covered by the

17 notices of proposed rulemaking published on May

18 25, 2000.

19 (b) PROMULGATION OF FINAL RULES.—The Sec20 retary of Transportation shall not promulgate final rules

21 (including interim final rules) to implement the planning

22 and environmental streamlining provisions and address

23 the other matters described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of

24 subsection (a) until on or after May 1, 2001.
3

S 3173 IS

1 (c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than the date

2 on which the revised notices of proposed rulemaking under

3 subsection (a) are published in the Federal Register, the

4 Secretary of Transportation shall submit to the Com5 mittee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate

6 and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

7 of the House of Representatives—

8 (1) a summary of each revised proposed rule9 making; and

10 (2) a detailed description of the differences be11 tween the revised notices of proposed rulemaking

12 and the notices of proposed rulemaking published on

13 May 25, 2000.

Æ
# 3Jn tbe Wniteb $tates**~ourt** 

# of jf 

# eberal**~Iaitns** No. 18-25C (Filed June 7 , 2018) NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

### * * * * * * * * * * 

### * * * * * * 

### * * * * MITCHELL T. TAEBEL, 

### * •k Plaintiff, 

### * 

### * v. 

### * 

### * THE UNITED STATES, 

### * * Defendant. 

### * * 

### * * * * 

### * * * * 

### * * * 

### * * * * * * * * ORDER 

# FILED JUN- 72018 U.S

. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIM S

This case was filed 

### prose on D ecemb e r 27, 2017, by plaintiff , Mitchell T. Taebel. 

### S ee generally ECF No. 1. In his complaint, Mr. T aebel alleged that the D epartment of Ju s tice is an unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power and th er e fore a violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

### Id. Becaus e Mr

. Taebel's claim fe ll outside of the court's jurisdiction, this Court di smissed his co mplaint on January 11 , 2018. 

### See ECF No

. 5. Mister Tae be l then file d a n otice of appeal on January 19, 2018

. 

### See ECF No. 7. Despite th e pendency of his appeal , he now submits a request for a restraining order against alleged surveillance by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, under Rule 65(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of F e deral Claims (RCFC). Considering Mr. Taebel' s 

### prose status, the Court will allow the paper to b e filed and treated as a motion for an injunction p e nding an appeal under RCFC 62(c). Grant ing the motion, how ever, would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, this court's ability to grant equitable r eli ef under the Tucker Act is extremely limited. 

### See 28 U.S.C

. 

### § 1491(a)(2) 

### & (b)(2) ; 

### United States v. Tohono O'Odham Nation, 563 U.S. 307, 313 (2011) (citing 

### United States v. King, 395 U.S

. 1 , 2-3 ( 1 969))

. As Mr

. Taebel has brought neither a bid protest nor a backpay claim , his case would not qualify for such r elief. Se co nd , this Co urt h as already d etermined that it has nosubject-matter jurisdiction over Mr. Taebel's claim. See ECF No. 5. For these reasons, Mr. Taebel's request for an injunction is 

### DENIED. If Mr. Taebel wishes to seek further relief, he should seek it from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit-as that is the court that currently has jurisdiction over his case. 

### IT IS SO ORDERED.



### - 2

-
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1385** 

MAI CHAPPEL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,

v. CHRISTINA COOPOCK, Executive Mortgage Specialist of Wells Fargo Bank , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. James R. Spencer , District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 00084

- JRS )

Submitted : August 6, 2013 Decided: August 14, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Mai Chappel, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mai Chappel appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) for failure to comply with a court order . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chappel v. Coopock , No. 3:13

- cv - 00084

- JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 5, 2013) **.** We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0584

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

NICK LENIER WILSON,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Nick Lenier Wilson was granted an extension of time to file and serve 

Appellant’s opening brief on or before March 3, 2021. The opening brief is now overdue.

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file and serve the opening brief on 

appeal no later than March 31, 2021. Failure to file the brief within that time will result in 

dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 11 2021

03/11/2021

Case Number: DA 19-0584
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84921-84922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-24673]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4828-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]


Florida; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4828-DR), dated September 28, 2024, and 
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued October 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Florida is hereby amended to include permanent work 
under the Public Assistance program for the following areas among those 
areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared 
a major disaster by the President in his declaration of September 28, 
2024.

    Gadsden and Liberty Counties for Public Assistance.
    Charlotte, Citrus, Columbia, Dixie, Franklin, Gilchrist, Gulf, 
Hamilton, Hernando, Jefferson, Lafayette, Leon, Levy, Madison, 
Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas, Sarasota, Suwannee, Taylor, and Wakulla 
Counties for permanent work [Categories C-G] (already designated for 
Individual Assistance and assistance for debris removal and 
emergency protective measures [Categories A and B], including direct 
Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,

[[Page 84922]]

Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2024-24673 Filed 10-23-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
S. 388

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To authorize the establishment of a disaster mitigation pilot program in the Small

Business Administration.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DISASTER MITIGATION PILOT PROGRAM.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7(b)(1) of the Small Business Act

(15 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)) is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (B), by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(C) during fiscal years 2000 through 2004, to establish

a predisaster mitigation program to make such loans (either

directly or in cooperation with banks or other lending institutions through agreements to participate on an immediate or

deferred (guaranteed) basis), as the Administrator may determine to be necessary or appropriate, to enable small businesses

to use mitigation techniques in support of a formal mitigation

program established by the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, except that no loan or guarantee may be extended

to a small business under this subparagraph unless the

Administration finds that the small business is otherwise

unable to obtain credit for the purposes described in this

subparagraph;’’.

(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 20 of the

Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 note) is amended by adding

at the end the following:

‘‘(f) DISASTER MITIGATION PILOT PROGRAM.—The following program levels are authorized for loans under section 7(b)(1)(C): ‘‘(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.

‘‘(2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2001.

‘‘(3) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

‘‘(4) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

‘‘(5) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.’’.

(c) EVALUATION.—On January 31, 2003, the Administrator of

the Small Business Administration shall submit to the Committees

on Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Senate

a report on the effectiveness of the pilot program authorized by

section 7(b)(1)(C) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(C)),

as added by subsection (a) of this section, which report shall

include—

(1) information relating to—

(A) the areas served under the pilot program;

(B) the number and dollar value of loans made under

the pilot program; and
S. 388—2

(C) the estimated savings to the Federal Government

resulting from the pilot program; and

(2) such other information as the Administrator determines

to be appropriate for evaluating the pilot program.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
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





The
undersigned, Benny Gaber, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of
Cardio Vascular Medical Corp. (the “Company”), certifies, under the standards
set forth and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,
2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




Date: May
8, 2009





By:
                        /s/ Benny GaberName:
                          Title:
                        Benny
      Gaber
                          President,
      Chief Executive Officer and
                          Director
      (Principal Executive
Officer)




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.