alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00173 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF M .A.M. , A CHILD On Appeal from the County Court at Law Moore County , Texas Trial Court No. CL200 - 18 , Honorable Delwin T. McGee , Presiding



### July 3 1 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN , C.J. , and PIRTLE and PARKER , JJ. The suit underlying this appeal was initiated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. The latter sought to terminate the parental relationship between M.A.M. and the child ’ s biological parents , among other things. The trial court eventually issued its order dismissing the Department as the child ’ s temporary managing conservator and returned the child to the child ’ s mother. Nothing was said within the order about the cause of action for termination in general. Nor did the order mention a ppellant , A.M. , father of M.A.M. of the termination suit against him. A.M. appealed. Generally , appellate courts only have jurisdiction over final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 195 (Tex. 2001). A judgment is final for2

purposes of appeal if it disposes of all pending parties and claims. Id. We have jurisdiction to consider immediate appeals of interlocutory orders only if a statute explicitly provides appellate jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352 , 352
– 53 (Tex. 1998). Questioning whether we had jurisdiction over the appeal , we notified A.M. and the Department. of our concern and directed them to explain in writing why jurisdiction exists
. They were to file their r eplies no later than July 26 , 2019. To date , neither has replied or otherwise attempted to explain how we have jurisdiction over this appeal , given that the order of dismissal encompass ed only one of multiple aspect s or causes of action and only one of mu ltiple parties. Accordingly , w e dismiss this appeal f or want of jurisdiction
. Per Curiam
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.2 Certification of Vice-President, Accounting
of Ocean Rig ASA pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act I, Erling Meinich-Bache, certify that:  1.
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Ocean Rig ASA;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 Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
report;4.
    The Companys other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for
the Company 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 Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is
being prepared;b)
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Company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; andc)
    disclosed in this report any change in the Companys internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Companys internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    The companys other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the
audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):  a)
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the Company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 Companys internal control over financial reporting. Date: June 9, 2005 /s/ Erling Meinich-BacheErling Meinich-BacheSenor Vice-president, Accounting
 F-58
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 698 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 698

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To review the suitability and feasibility of recovering costs of high 
 altitude rescues at Denali National Park and Preserve in the State of 
                    Alaska, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That no later than nine 
months after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall complete a report 
on the suitability and feasibility of recovering the costs of high 
altitude rescues on Mt. McKinley, within Denali National Park and 
Preserve. The Secretary shall also report on the suitability and 
feasibility of requiring climbers to provide proof of medical insurance 
prior to the issuance of a climbing permit by the National Park 
Service. The report shall also review the amount of fees charged for a 
climbing permit and make such recommendations for changing the fee 
structure as the Secretary deems appropriate. Upon completion, the 
report shall be submitted to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources of the Senate, and the Committee on Resources of the House of 
Representatives.

            Passed the Senate November 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
106th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 698

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To review the suitability and feasibility of recovering costs of high 
 altitude rescues at Denali National Park and Preserve in the State of 
                    Alaska, and for other purposes.
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**











CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














I,
      Albert
      E. Sisto, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the hi/fn, inc. Annual
      Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly
      presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
      operations of hi/fn, inc.








November
                14, 2007
            /s/
                ALBERT E. SISTOAlbert
                E. SistoInterim
                Chief Executive Officer
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


            In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Union  Financial
  Bancshares,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March
  31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission (the "Report"),
  I, Dwight V. Neese,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,
  certify,  pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.1350,  as  added by  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 as of and for the period covered by the Report.

                                                /s/  Dwight V. Neese
                                                -------------------------
                                                     Dwight V. Neese
                                                     President and Chief
                                                     Executive Officer
         Date:   May  3,  2004
                     --
#### *STATE and JULIUS A. GRAY and others v. THE ATLANTIC & NORTH CAROLINA RAILROAD COMPANY.

1. It is against the policy of the law to allow multiplicity of suits between the same parties about the same matter; *Therefore,*where the plaintiff herein was a party to an action pending in the Superior Court of one County, and thereupon instituted this action - in the Superior Court of another County for relief which he might have sought by proceedings in the former Court; *Held,*that this action should be dismissed.

*2.*This Court will not try a case wherein the subject matter is not in dispute, and only the question of costs remains.

*{Childs*v *Martín,*69 N. C. 126; *Mar tin*v." *Sloan, Ibid.*128; *Claywell*v. *Sudderth, ante.*.287, cited and approved.)

MotioN to vacate an Order appointing a Receiver, and for an Injunction, heard at Chambers in Greensboro, on the 15th of March, 1877, before *Cox, J.*

A statement of the facts is not necessary to an understanding of the opinion. See the two preceding cases. His Honor refused both motions and the defendant appealed.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller Ashe,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. W. N. H. Siaüh.&wá. D. Cr.*Fowle, for defendant.

*

Faircloth, J., did not sit on the hearing of this case.

Reade, J.

The subject matter of this suit was at the time of its commencement already involved in a suit pending in the Superior Court of Craven, entitled *“*Commissioners of Craven v. A. *&*N. C. R. R. Co , John L. Morehead and Julius A. Gray," *ante*289, in which the plaintiff Gray, was a party. And the relief sought in this case — the appointment of a Receiver andan injunction — could have been as well obtained in that case as in this. And as it is against the policy of the law to allow multiplicity of suits between the same parties about the same matter, the plaintiff’s motions ought to have been refused, and the suit dismissed. *Childs*v. *Martin,*69 N. C. 126; *Claywell*v. Sudderth, *ante,*287. *300There was therefore error in allowing the plaintiff’s motions for a Receiver and for an injunction.

Furthermore, we have frequently held that where the subject matter of a suit is no longer in dispute, and nothing but the costs remain, we will not try the case. *Martin*v. Sloan, 69 N. C. 128. The subject matter of this suit has been disposed of at this term in the aforesaid Craven suit. There is no reason, therefore, why the suit should remain; and we would dismiss it here, but the appeal being only from interlocutory orders, the case is not in this Court.

There is error. This will be certified to the end that the case may be dismissed.

Pee Curiam. Judgment reversed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

February 7, 2011 

s0131 

Order 

 

February 7, 2011 

141386 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141386 

 COA: 296120 

Wayne CC: 06-010757-FC 

NATHANIEL SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2010 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to 

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-68917, 333-69149, 333-77331, 333-48232, 333-61070, 333-87672,
333-114700, 333-135984 and 333-135987) of hi/fn, inc. of our report dated
November 13, 2008 relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form
10-K.








/s/
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP


San Jose,
California


November
13, 2008
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                         REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of Computer Data Systems, Inc.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Computer Data Systems, Inc.
as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related consolidated statements on income,
changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the two years in the
period ended June 30, 1997. These financial statements are the responsibility of
the Corporation's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
these financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of computer Data
Systems, Inc. at June 30, 1997 and 1996 (not presented separately herein), and
the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the
two years in the period ended June 30, 1997 (not presented separately herein),
in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.



Washington, D.C.
July 28, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          15,366
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  251,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,606
<INVENTORY>                                    155,965
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               427,320
<PP&E>                                       3,389,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                 536,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,481,003
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,250,980
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                        18,215
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,990,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,481,003
<SALES>                                        275,052
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               633,598
<CGS>                                          233,722
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,620,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              76,618
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,297,122)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,227,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,227,261)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

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

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MEDHAT A. HABIB,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73850

Agency No. A070-084-397

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 8, 2012** 

Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Medhat A. Habib, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

AUG 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73850

an abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen. Toufighi v.

Mukasey, 538 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2008). We deny the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Habib’s motion to reopen as

untimely where the motion was filed over 12 years after the September 30, 1996

deadline, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Habib failed to present sufficient

evidence of changed circumstances in Egypt of individualized relevancy to him to

qualify for the regulatory exception to the time limit for filing motions to reopen,

see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(ii); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 987-90 (9th

Cir. 2010).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
schedule313.htm






SCHEDULE 3.13


TO THE CREDIT AGREEMENT


 


CAPITALIZATION AND SUBSIDIARIES


 








	  Subsidiaries	
Jurisdiction of

	
% of


	
 

	
Incorporation

	
Ownership*


	
Audiovox Accessories Corp.

	
Delaware

	
100%


	
Batteries.com, LLC

	
Indiana

	
100%**


	
Technuity, Inc.

	
Indiana

	
100%**


	
Audiovox Electronics Corporation

	
Delaware

	
100%


	
Code Systems, Inc.

	
Delaware

	
100%***


	
Audiovox Consumer Electronics Inc.

	
Delaware

	
100%


	
American Radio Corp.

	
Georgia

	
100%







 


*Audiovox Corporation is parent unless otherwise indicated. 


**Audiovox Accessories Corporation is the parent.


***Audiovox Electronics Corporation is the parent.


****None of these subsidiaries is a Material Foreign Subsidiary
#### A. A. McKETHAN v. R. M. McNEILL and another.

The Clerk of the Superior Court is the proper person, and not the Judge in term time, before whom application is made upon proof, for an. execution upon a judgment of over three years standing. The execution is returnable to the next term.

This was a Motion for leave to issue execution, heard before Buxton, *J.,*upon appeal from the ruling of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Cumberland county, Fall Term, 1876.

The motion was refused, on the ground that the Clerk had •, no jurisdiction thereof, and his Honor sustained the ruling ; being of the opinion, that Bat. Rev., chap. 18, sec. 7, suspending the C. C. P., required such motion to be made after notice, in term.

From this ruling the plaintiff-appealed.

*Sutton*and *Jones dk Jones,*for appellant.

No counsel, *contra*in this court.

Reade, J.

Prior to C. C. P., when a plaintiff wanted to sue out execution upon a judgment, he had nothing to do but to go to the Clerk of the Court and get it, or tell him to issue it, returnable to the next term.

The practice was the same under C. C. P., except that the Clerk made the execution returnable before himself, instead of to the next term, and except that when the judgment Avas three years old, he could not issue'execution at all, unless the plaintiff swore or otherwise proved that the judgment had not been satisfied. C. C. P., sec. 256.

All that is plain under C. C. P.; but then comes the statute suspending the C. C. P., and providing that executions shall be returnable to the next *term*after they are issued, instead of before the Clerk, and shall be tested as of the preceding *664term, wbicb restores tbe old practice as it was prior to C. C. P., except that it still requires the affidavit as under C. C. P.

And so tbe question is, whether inasmuch as it is now required that the execution shall be returnable to the next *term,*and tested as of the preceding teTM, it is not to be implied that the application for the execution and the affidavit must be to the Judge in term time ? And whether the Judge in term time, and not the Clerk in vacation, must not order the execution to issue.

His Honor was of the opinion, that under the statute suspending C. C. P., the execution could only be issued by order of the Judge in term time. Bat. Rev., chap. 18, sec. 7. In that we are of the opinion there is error. The object of that statement was to prevent the hasty return of the execution to the Clerk, and to make it returnable to the next *term*of the court, hut still it is to be *issued*by the Clerk, without any Order of the Judge in or out of term.

There is error. This will be certified.

PER CüRIAM. Judgment reversed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 21, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00045

- CV

IN RE ATW INVESTMENTS, INC. , Brian Payton, Ying Payton, and American Dream

Renovations and Construction, LLC

,

From the 131st Judicial Distr ict Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 00545

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The second motion for extension of time filed by the real parties in interest is

GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on February 21, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________ __

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk
##### 



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
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Dated:  January 23, 2007
    /s/ Lynn R. BlodgettLynn R. Blodgett,President and Chief Executive Officer of
Affiliated Computer Services, Inc.