alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed December 12 , 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 19

- 00791

- CV

____________ WILLIAM ARCHIE ARMST RONG , Appellant

V.
WILL JONES JR. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 29377



### O R D E R The reporter’s record has not been filed. The court reporter notified this court that appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record and
i s not appealing as indigent.
On October 31, 2019, defendant/a ppellant filed a n affidavit pursuant to Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 145 in the trial court. Rule 145 establishes procedures for a litigant to proceed without payment of court costs. The party i s required to file a Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs

. We construe appellant’s affidavit to be the statement required by Rule 145. “A party who files a Statement of2

Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs cannot be required to pay costs except by order of the court as provided by this rule.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(a). “Costs” includes fees charged by the court reporter for preparation of the appellate record. Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(c). No contest to appellant’s statement appears in the cl erk’s record, and we have not received an order requiring appellant to pay costs pursuant to Rule 145. Appellant is therefore permitted to proceed without payment of costs in
the trial court. Accordingly, the official court reporter for the 270th District Court is ordered to file the reporter’s record on or before January 13, 2020

. PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Poissant.
EX PARTE Alberto NAVARRO

CR-16-0724

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Jefferson Cir. Ct.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                   STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
          CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for  the period ended
March  31,  2006 (the "Form 10-Q") of Grayson Bankshares, Inc. (the  "Company"),
we, Jacky K.  Anderson,  Chief  Executive  Officer  of the Company, and Blake M.
Edwards, Chief Financial 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 our knowledge:

      (a)   the  Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (b)   the information  contained  in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition  and  results  of operations of
      the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-Q.



      By:   /s/ Jacky K, Anderson              Date: March 15, 2006
            ----------------------------             ---------------------------
            Jacky K. Anderson
            Chief Executive Officer



      By:   /s/ Blake M. Edwards               Date: March 15, 2006
            ----------------------------             ---------------------------
            Blake M. Edwards
            Chief Financial Officer
lob-ex1053_314.htm



Exhibit 10.5.3

 

 

 

nCino Renewal Amendment

 

 

This nCino Renewal Amendment (“Amendment”) is effective as of the la test signature date below, and amends the nCino, LLC Software Service Agreement (“Agreement”) by and between nCino, Inc. (“nCino”) and Live Oak Banking Company (“Subscriber”).   Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Agreement.

 

In exchange for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by both parties, nCino and Subscriber do hereby agree as follows:

 

1.The parties hereby agree to extend the Term of the Agreement until November 1 4, 2021.  Accordingly, commencing on the effective date of this Amendment, Section 3.7 “TERM” of the Agreement shall be amended and restated to read as follow:  “This Agreement shall be in force upon the date that both parties have executed this Agreement in its entirety, and shall continue until November 1 4, 2021.  Thereafter, this Agreement will automatically renew for additional one (1) year periods unless either party provides the other party with written notice of termination at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the then current term.”

 

2.Except as set forth in this Amendment, the Agreement is unaffected and shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms. Any further modification or amendment to the Agreement must be agreed to in writing in a document executed by both parties.

 

The foregoing is hereby agreed by the parties: Signatures:

 


		
	
nCino, Inc.:
	
Subscriber:

	
/s/ Rachel Perelli_________
	
/s/ Huntley Garriott__________

	
(Signature)
	
(Signature)

	
 
	
 

	
Rachel Perelli____________
	
Huntley Garriott______________

	
(Printed Name)
	
(Printed Name)

	
 
	
 

	
Sales Operations Manager__
	
President____________________

	
(Title)
	
(Title)

	
 
	
 

	
1/18/2019_______________
	
1/18/2019___________________

	
(Date)
	
(Date)




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 1 of 1
Charles ANDALUZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT COLLIER COUNTY, Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4308

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mandamus is denied.
(January 22, 2004)

#### Ann A. Stolz et al., Appellants, v 111 Tenants Corp., Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 3]

*422Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rosalyn Richter, J.), entered April 15, 2003, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for a *Yellowstone*injunction enjoining defendant landlord from taking action to terminate their proprietary lease and tolling the time to cure the default alleged in the notice to cure dated August 15, 2002, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs’ motion granted.

Under the terms of the notice to cure served by defendant on plaintiffs, plaintiffs had the option of either allowing defendant access to the residential premises in order to remove a greenhouse and make the necessary repairs, or plaintiffs could remove the greenhouse themselves and then grant defendant access to make the repairs. Inasmuch as plaintiffs chose to exercise their right to remove the greenhouse themselves, duly made a conclusive showing *(Caldwell v 302 Convent Ave. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.,*272 AD2d 112 [2000]) that removal could not be accomplished within the 10-day period provided in Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 753 (4) as a result of the requirements of New York City Building Code [Administrative Code of City of NY] §§ 27-191 and 27-147, and met the other requirements for issuance of a *Yellowstone*injunction, said injunction should have issued here *(cf. Post v 120 E. End Ave. Corp.,*62 NY2d 19, 28 [1984]; *Kanter v East 62nd St. Assoc.,*111 AD2d 26, 27 [1985]; *Wilen v Harridge House,*94 AD2d 123, 126-129 [1983]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### Marlon VASQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-70526

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

*243Richard Miyamoto, Attorney, Phung, Miyamoto *&*Diaz, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable, for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Marlon Vasquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Vasquez failed to establish a nexus between the harm he suffered and fears and a protected ground. *See Zetino v. Holder,*622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An [applicant’s] desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground.”). Thus, Vasquez’s withholding of removal claim fails.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Vasquez’s CAT claim because he failed to show that it is more likely than not that he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. *See Silaya v. Mukasey,*524 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
L.P., father of Y.P., A Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3934

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Mortons Restaurant Group, Inc. (Mortons) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald M. DiNella, the Chief Financial Officer of Mortons, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii) The information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Mortons.

Date: November 7, 2008



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|                                         
|/s/ RONALD M. DINELLA                    
|Ronald M. DiNella Chief Financial
Officer
#### Fabio K. PERIERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY; International Creative Management; United Talent Agency; Richard Lovett, President, CAA; Ashley Hasz; Chris Lawson, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-2183

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: March 20, 2017

Decided: May 4, 2017

Fabio K. Periera, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Fabio Krishna Periera seeks to appeal the district court’s *sua sponte*order dismissing his civil action without prejudice for his failure to allege facts in the complaint to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over the defendants. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed, 1528 (1949). We conclude that the order Periera seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. *See Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aid,*807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015).

Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the pending motions, dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow Periera an opportunity to amend or supplement his complaint.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED AND REMANDED*

*

 We note that a defendant may waive the defense of a lack of jurisdiction over the person, *see*Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1); *Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,*526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999), and we express no view on the propriety of the district court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of the action on this basis.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 27 (Wednesday, February 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7474-7475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02660]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel NIAID New Innovators Awards (DP2 
Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 10-11, 2022.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 7475]]

    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Brenda Lange-Gustafson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural 
Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G41B, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 669-5047, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#771510020403161104181937191e161e1359191e1f59101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f0d081a1c1b0e091c00012f01060e060b4101060741080019">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

     Dated: February 3, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02660 Filed 2-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2012-0798 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2012-CE-023-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: G. Keith Noles Date

Branch Manager Date
From: Christopher Bolduc [mailto:cabolduc@lbl.gov]

Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 12:58 PM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: rick.anderson@faypwc.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; ScottB@lvmetals.com;

john.caskey@nema.org; jerry.corkran@cooperindustries.com;

john.cymbalsky@ee.doe.gov; adelaski@standardsasap.org; Teckman@nwcouncil.org;

gbf1@pge.com; carlos.gaytan@ge.com; rgreeson@federalpacific.com;

bruce.r.hirsch@bge.com; jhodge@howard.com; mhyland@appanet.org;

dave.millure@metglas.com; snadel@aceee.org; wes.patterson@us.abb.com;

Eric.Petersen@aksteel.com; Raymond.Polinski@atimetals.com;

artrosenfeld@gmail.com; srosenstock@eei.org; rroy@nrdc.org;

robert.saint@nreca.coop; chuck.simmons@pgnmail.com; BermanEconomics@gmail.com;

Daniel.Cohen@hq.doe.gov; greg.coulter405@gmail.com; Jim.creevy@nema.org;

ahofmann@publicpower.org; pkumar@publicpower.org; jmauer@standardsasap.org;

Aaron.Meyers@cooperindustries.com; jrossetti@mlgw.org; Paul.Ryan@hitmet.com;

jerry.schoen@aksteel.com; bsmith@federalpacific.com; mwal tner@nrdc.org;

kwinder@mleainc.com; cabolduc@lbl.gov; Brian Coffey; kcoughlin@lbl.gov;

brenda.edwards@ee.doe.gov; jeremiah.freeman@ee.doe.gov; Caitlin Johnson; Zhimei

Luo; emily.marchetti@ee.doe.gov; Michael Rivest; gjrosenquist@lbl.gov;

charlied@uus.org; phopkinson@hvolt.com; James.Lass@cleco.com;

maheshsampat@bellsouth.net; DYoung@energy

‐ solution.com;

chad.kennedy@us.schneider

‐ electric.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com;

vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; thomas.patzner@us.schneider

‐ electric.com;

carlosgsiqueiros@eaton.com; Raba, Jim

Subject: MV Liquid

‐ immersed LCC and NIA Results Update

Dear Committee Members,

Please find the updated draft LCC and NI A results for liquid

‐ immersed medium

‐ voltage transformers (design lines 1

‐ 5) attached. The values for Mean

Incremental First Cost and Mean Operating Cost Savings were misreported in the

previous draft.

Thank you,

‐‐ Chris

‐‐‐‐

Chris Bolduc

Energy Efficiency Standards Group

Environmental Energy Technologies Division Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

t. 416

‐ 535

‐ 7546 c. 64 7

‐ 832

‐ 4021
Christopher R. BARSALOU, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-506

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Angel CALDERON-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51350 c/w No. 16-51352 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

*347Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Angel Calderon-Aguilar, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Angel Calderon-Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Calderon-Aguilar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
K & J RESTAURANT, INC., Mary Ann Kieffer, Clifford C. Kieffer and Richard Vincent Jones, Appellants, v. Ann R. ORZA, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-199

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 8, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0304

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM EDDIE MOODY,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion, and good cause 

appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement the 

Record is GRANTED. The transcript of the hearing in Judith Basin 

County District Court, Cause No. DC 23-2018-9 on December 16, 2019, 

shall be placed in the file of this Court for this cause. The Clerk shall 

serve a copy of this Order upon the court reporter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 24 2021

05/24/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0304
Roger OWENS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5697

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25, 2017.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-17-00237-CV

TOKES ADLEYE, Appellant 

V.

MAGARET DRISCAL, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 310th District Court 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-66224 

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

This is an attempted appeal from an amended post-judgment order on certain 

bankruptcy issues. The post-judgment order was issued in response to an order of 

this court in Cause No. 14-14-00822-CV. Certain limited classes of post-judgment 

orders have been recognized as appealable orders. See Walter v. Marathon Oil 

Corp., 422 S.W.3d 848, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.). 

However, the trial court’s order does not fall within any of those classes. Id.
On June 20, 2017, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless on or before July 5, 

2017, appellant filed a response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Wise, and Jewell.