alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 26, 2017

No. 04-16-00724-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.S.-T., A CHILD,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14-2048-CV

Honorable W.C. Kirkendall, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the October 13, 2016 order terminating the father’s and 

mother’s parental rights to their child, the appellants’ briefs were due to be filed with this court 

on December 19, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). 

This court granted the mother’s and father’s first motions for extension of time to file the 

brief until January 9, 2017, and January 18, 2017, respectively. See id. We cautioned Appellants

that “[f]urther motions for extension of time to file Appellant’s brief are discouraged.” See TEX.

R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a) (directing courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days 

of the date the notice of appeal is filed”). 

On January 12, 2017, the father moved this court for an extension of time to file his brief 

and an order compelling the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record. On January 

13, 2017, the mother moved this court for the same relief; her motion identified essential 

documents that were missing from the clerk’s record and needed in the supplemental clerk’s 

record. 

On January 24, 2017, the Guadalupe County District Clerk’s office notified this court that 

it intends to file a supplemental clerk’s record by January 27, 2017. 

Given the documents missing from the appellate record, the appellate record is not yet 

complete; we withdraw the brief due dates. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellants’ briefs will 

be due TWENTY DAYS after the supplemental clerk’s record is filed. See id. The State’s brief 

will be due TWENTY DAYS after the Appellants’ briefs are filed. See id. R. 38.6(b). 

We caution Appellants and the State that NO EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE 

THE PARTIES’ BRIEFS WILL BE GRANTED. 
The child’s “need for permanence is the paramount consideration for the child’s present 

and future physical and emotional needs.” See Dupree v. Tex. Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory 

Servs., 907 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1995, no writ). This court must render its 

decision “with the least possible delay,” and any further delays will hinder this court in its duty. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c); In re J.L., 163 S.W.3d 79, 82 (Tex. 2005) (quoting TEX. FAM. CODE 

ANN. § 263.405(a) (West 2014)); see also TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a) (180 day disposition 

requirement). 

Appellants’ motions for this court to order the Guadalupe County District Clerk’s office 

to file a supplemental clerk’s record are MOOT. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 26th day of January, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2946 

To require the Secretary of the Navy to notify Congress of pending action 

to strike from the Naval Vessel Register any naval vessel that is a 

viable candidate for artificial reefing, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2021 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself and Mr. WICKER) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Navy to notify Congress 

of pending action to strike from the Naval Vessel Register any naval vessel that is a viable candidate for 

artificial reefing, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Re-using Equipment 

5 for Environmental Fortification Act’’ or the ‘‘REEF Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2946 IS

1 SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION OF PENDING AC2 TION TO STRIKE FROM THE NAVAL VESSEL 

3 REGISTER NAVAL VESSELS THAT ARE VIABLE 

4 CANDIDATES FOR ARTIFICIAL REEFING. 

5 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con6 gress that the Secretary of the Navy should explore and 

7 solicit artificial reefing opportunities with appropriate en8 tities for any naval vessel planned for retirement before 

9 initiating any plans to dispose of the vessel. 

10 (b) NOTIFICATION.—Not later than 90 days before 

11 the date on which a naval vessel that is a viable candidate 

12 for artificial reefing is to be stricken from the Naval Vessel 

13 Register, the Secretary of the Navy shall notify Congress 

14 of such pending action. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF TUMBLEWEED COMMUNICATIONS
CORP.

AS OF JUNE 4, 2003



|Subsidiary                                 |  | Date of Incorporation |  | Country of Incorporation
|------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------- |  | ------------------------
|Tumbleweed Communications, Ltd.            |  | 02/23/99              |  | U.K.                    
|Tumbleweed Communications GmbH             |  | 05/21/99              |  | Germany                 
|Tumbleweed Communications S.A.             |  | 05/25/99              |  | France                  
|Tumbleweed Communications Aktiebolag (AB)  |  | 03/14/00              |  | Sweden                  
|Tumbleweed Communications BV               |  | 03/23/00              |  | Netherlands             
|Tumbleweed Communications Ltd.Hong Kong   |  | 05/22/00              |  | Hong Kong               
|Tumbleweed Communications GmbHSwitzerland |  | 08/08/00              |  | Switzerland             
|Interface Systems, Inc.                    |  | 01/15/98              |  | U.S.A.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-14-0000808

15-FEB-2018

09:32 AM
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44203

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BENJAMIN ARTHUR ANNABOLI,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 809

Filed: December 8, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of ten years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of five years, for two counts of intimidation of a 

witness, affirmed.

Daniel G. Cooper, Coeur d’Alene, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Benjamin Arthur Annaboli pled guilty to two counts of intimidation of a witness. Idaho 

Code § 18-2604(3). The district court sentenced Annaboli to an aggregate unified sentence of 

ten years with five years determinate. Annaboli appeals asserting that the district court abused 

its discretion by imposing excessive sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Annaboli’s judgment of conviction and sentence are 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 River  Capital  Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2006,  as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Howard  Taylor,  Chairman  (Principal  Executive and  Financial  Officer) of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)      The  Report  fully  complies  with the requirements of section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ HOWARD TAYLOR
-------------------------------------------
Howard Taylor President
(Chief Executive Officer and
Chief Financial Officer)
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-16-00295-CV

Yuridia Y. Martinez and Maria S. Martinez

v.

Ditech Financial LLC f/k/a Green Tree Servicing, LLC

On appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-15-4041-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 1, 2016
Exhibit 12.2  Section 302 Certification  I, Andrew Keating, certify that:  1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Bank of Ireland;  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 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-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 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 report is being prepared;  (b)Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c)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; and  (d)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;  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: 27 March 2013Andrew Keating/s/Andrew KeatingName:
Andrew KeatingTitle:
Group Chief Financial OfficerBank of Ireland
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

VINYL VISIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CRAIG A. OEHME, DBA E.E. PAULEY PLASTIC 

EXTRUSION, BENJAMIN OEHME,

Defendants-Appellees

DOES, 2-10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendant

______________________ 

2015-1273

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Central District of California in No. 5:13-cv-01818-TJHDTB, Senior Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr..

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

ALAN STEVEN YOCKELSON, Law Office of Alan S. 

Yockelson, San Diego, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.

ANDREW DALLMANN, Burch Dallmann LLP, Irvine, 

CA, argued for defendants-appellees. 

______________________ 
 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and 

WALLACH, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

October 15, 2015 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Date Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-31380

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLENN WAYNE KELLY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 01-CR-50061-ALL

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

May 2, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glenn Wayne Kelly appeals from his sentence following his

guilty plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a

firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Kelly challenges

the district court’s four-point increase in the total offense

level for possession of a firearm “in connection with another

felony” pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5). Kelly argues that
No. 01-31380

-2-

the Government did not establish that he possessed a firearm in

connection with a felony offense as required by § 2K2.1(b)(5).

The district court’s application of the § 2K2.1(b)(5)

enhancement will be upheld unless it is implausible in light of

the record as a whole. See United States v. Condren, 18 F.3d

1190, 1199 (5th Cir. 1994). The Government was required to show

only that the gun was available to Kelly and that the weapon

could have been used to facilitate the other crime. Condren, 18

F.3d at 1197-1200; United States v. Armstead, 114 F.3d 504, 511-

512 (5th Cir. 1997). We have reviewed the record and conclude

that the district court did not err in applying § 2K2.1(b)(5). 

Kelly’s sentence is therefore AFFIRMED.
# C_2016351EN.01000201.xml

| 27.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

26 September 2016

(2016/C 351/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1262 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 113,11 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4539 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,87090 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,6075 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0905 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,1318 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,021 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 306,52 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3045 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4498 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,3563 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4751 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4825 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,7342 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5513 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5316 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 246,11 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,3985 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,5105 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5030 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 674,39 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,6501 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 54,365 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 71,9272 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,967 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,6522 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 22,3599 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 75,0600 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1262

JPY

Japanese yen

113,11

DKK

Danish krone

7,4539

GBP

Pound sterling

0,87090

SEK

Swedish krona

9,6075

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0905

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,1318

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,021

HUF

Hungarian forint

306,52

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3045

RON

Romanian leu

4,4498

TRY

Turkish lira

3,3563

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4751

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4825

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,7342

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5513

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5316

KRW

South Korean won

1 246,11

ZAR

South African rand

15,3985

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,5105

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5030

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 674,39

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,6501

PHP

Philippine peso

54,365

RUB

Russian rouble

71,9272

THB

Thai baht

38,967

BRL

Brazilian real

3,6522

MXN

Mexican peso

22,3599

INR

Indian rupee

75,0600

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof deCODE genetics, Inc. (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), the undersigned , Kari Stefansson, Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer of the Registrant, and Lance Thibault, Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, and (2) that the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

|                        |   | /s/ Kari  Stefansson                                             |
|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             |   | Kari Stefansson  Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer |
| Dated: March 15,  2006 |   |                                                             |
|                        |   | /s/  Lance Thibault                                              |
|                        |   | Lance Thibault  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer            |
| Dated: March 15, 2006  |   |                                                             |

 

----
Exhibit
32.01




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 Sangui Biotech International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Thomas Striepe, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Joachim Fleing, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:




(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 result of operations of the Company.








Dated: June 12,
2008   /s/
Thomas Striepe


__________________________________________


By:
Thomas Striepe


Chief
Executive Officer






Dated: June 12,
2008   /s/
Joachim Fleing
 __________________________________________
 By:
Joachim Fleing
 Chief
Financial Officer








A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 21, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 133441 & (29) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 133441 COA: 271346 Wayne CC: 96-007674-01 OTIS V. FRAZIER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 31, 2007 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 re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.

d0914 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 21, 2007

Clerk