alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 13
- 00289
- CV

T. D. J. and E. L. M. II, Appellant s

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 340TH DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, NO. C
- 12
- 0035
- CPS, THE H ONORABLE JAY K. WEAT HERBY, JUDGE PRESIDI NG

O R D E R
PER CURIAM

Appellant E. L. M. II filed his notice of appeal on May 9, 2013 . The appellate record was complete May 10, 2013 , making appellant ’ s brief due May 30, 2013

. On May 30, 2013 , counsel for app ellant filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief.

Recent amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a), ava ilable at http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/MiscDocket/12/12903200.pdf (providing 180 days fo r court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this
Court’ s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant ’ s brief no later than June 19, 2013 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held i n contempt of court.

It is ordered on June 4, 2013

. Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Goodwin and Field
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 Annual Report of United Nations Trade Finance Securities
      Center, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the twelve months ending June
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
      I,
      Lord Dr. Masaaki Ikawa, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
      Officer, 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 of the Company as of the dates presented and the results
      of operations of the Company.








/s/
                Lord Dr. Masaaki IkawaLord
                Dr. Masaaki IkawaPresident,
                Chief Executive OfficerChief
                Financial Officer











Dated:
      September 24, 2007
#### James Murray, Respondent, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 756]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (Jones, J.), entered November 19, 2002, as, upon a jury verdict on the issue of damages only, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sums of $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $250,000 for future pain and suffering.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the facts, by deleting the provision thereof awarding the plaintiff damages for future pain and suffering, and a new trial is granted only on the issue of those damages; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, unless within 30 days after service upon the plaintiff of a copy of this decision and order he shall serve and file in the office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, a written stipulation consenting to decrease the verdict as to damages for future pain and suffering from the principal sum of $250,000 to the principal sum of $200,000, and to the entry of an appropriate amended judgment accordingly; in the event that the plaintiff so stipulates, then the judgment, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

*480The proof was sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict for past pain and suffering in the sum of $200,000. However, the verdict for future pain and suffering was excessive to the extent indicated herein *(see*CPLR 5501 [c]; *Madrit v City of New York,*210 AD2d 459 [1994]; *see also Condor v City of New York,*292 AD2d 332 [2002]). Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and Rivera, JJ., concur.
#### SAVE TAIAGO and SIVA (Tuitele), Plaintiffs v. SAVE MATAPUAA and TAULAGO, Defendants

No. 10-1906

High Court of American Samoa Civil Jurisdiction, Trial Division

August 30, 1907

E. W. GURR, *Senior Member of Court;*and MAUGA, *Associate Member*

JUDGMENT

The lands in dispute in this case are declared to he the property of the Save family, and the person holding the title of Save will hold the lands in trust for the whole family. Such lands that the various members of the family have been working upon may continue to be cultivated by them, but under the direction of the trustee.

The costs of the court, which will be assessed are to be paid by Save, as trustee, and he will direct the several members of the family of the amount which each is .to pay. As trustee, the person holding the title of Save cannot enter into any agreement to sell or lease any portion of the property without first conferring with the members of the Save family and ascertaining their opinion.

Any disputes that might occur between the holder of the title of Save and the members of his family can be referred to the court for settlement, but no dispute as to the title of the property will be allowed.

Let a decree issue vesting the title in Save, as trustee, and the Registrar of Titles is ordered to issue a certificate of .title in favor of said Save as trustee.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF AUSTIN TEXAS

LAWRENCE JAMES,JR §- IN THE JUDICIAL 252nd

VS. §i^ DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS § JEFFERSON COUNTY TEXAS

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00380-CR C-^!^4^§^4?L

MOTION TO SUSPEND T.R.A.P RULE 9.3(b), Rule 211(a) NOV 03 2015

/i&S." Anns** oj. To the Clerk of Court, the Applicant stated above request-^the^ra, (Glof!

Court torSuspend T.R.^-A.P Rule 9.3(b), and Rule 211(a).

The Applicant is unable to make the eleven (11) copies which is

required by T.R.A.P Rule 211(a) and request the Court to provide

the necessary copies. r-i, _.«, .

MBr nLED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MOV 03 2615

Abel Acosta, Clerk

DATE: / 0/3°//S~ SINCERELY REQUESTED:'

cc:File

(\A/<yu<-^K

JRENCE JAMES/ JR

TDCJ-ID#19406(57
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          84,343                  26,492
<SECURITIES>                                    25,909                  22,128
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,042                   6,155
<ALLOWANCES>                                       427                     184
<INVENTORY>                                        807                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               117,330                  57,096
<PP&E>                                         122,829                 142,445
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,832                  52,050
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 254,725                 178,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,358                  60,638
<BONDS>                                        282,996                 263,997
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           53,047                  53,445
<PREFERRED>                                          8                       8
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (127,184)               (199,595)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   254,725                 178,493
<SALES>                                         36,681                  54,190
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,681                  54,190
<CGS>                                           29,184                  44,648
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,184                  44,648
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,737                  47,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   753                     375
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,162                  44,246
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,598)                (79,017)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (54,598)                (79,017)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     278                (13,688)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,113                  19,972
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (53,763)                (72,733)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (355)                   (469)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (355)                   (469)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 10.25


                        TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
                               November 1, 1999


To:    John Piccone

From:  Larry Tanning

Re:    Five Quarter Compensation Plan


    As we have discussed, Tanning has developed a compensation plan for certain
senior executives for the five-quarter period beginning October 1, 1999 and
ending December 31, 1999.  Your cash compensation for the period will be an
annual rate of $175,000 ($7,291.67 on  a semi-monthly basis).  In addition, you
will be granted stock options to purchase 18,750  shares of Tanning common stock
at a per share exercise price of  $35 under our 1999 Stock Option Plan.  These
options will become exercisable (vest) monthly on a ratable basis (1,250 shares
per month), beginning on October 31, 1999, in all cases subject to the terms and
conditions of the 1999 Stock Option Plan and the related stock option agreement.

    Your existing employment and related agreements with Tanning (including
provisions relating to non-competition, etc.) will remain in full force and
effect except to the extent related to cash compensation matters.  As to all
matters relating to cash compensation, including cash incentive compensation and
bonus arrangements, the cash compensation described above will govern, effective
October 1, 1999.

    We are extremely excited about our company's future, and look forward to
more success together. Please indicate your agreement with the provisions of
this memorandum by signing below.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          TANNING TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

                                          By:  /s/ Larry G. Tanning



AGREED AND ACCEPTED


By:  /s/ John N. Piccone
#### Gustavo Adrian PRIEGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SULLIVAN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15722

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 26, 2017*

Filed July 3, 2017

Gustavo Adrian Priego, Pro Se

*556Elliott Thomas Seals, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gustavo Adrian Priego appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Priego failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent to his wrist injury. *See id,*at 1057-60 (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Priego’s motion for appointment of counsel because Priego failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. *See Cano v. Taylor,*739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel)..

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Priego’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No, 31) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### IN RE: Jay P. CLARK, Debtor, Jay P. Clark, Appellant, v. Jeremy J. Gugino, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellee.

No. 16-60026

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 10, 2017* Portland, Oregon

Filed July 12, 2017

Jay P. Clark, Pro Se

Matthew Todd Christensen, Attorney, Angstman Johnson, Boise, ID, for Appel-lee

*645Before: WATFORD and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and CHHABRIA,** District Judge.

*

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

**

 The Honorable Vince G. Chhabria, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

1. The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear the Chapter 7 trustee’s request for denial of a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a). The bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction over all aspects of the case not involved in the appeals from the conversion and substantive consolidation orders. *See*28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(D); *In re Sherman,*491 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the appeals did not directly involve the denial-of-discharge proceeding, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction to resolve the trustee’s request for relief in that proceeding.

2. The bankruptcy court properly denied Jay P. Clark a discharge under § 727(a). The court may deny a discharge under § 727(a)(2)(B) if the debtor, “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor,” disposed of or concealed property of the estate. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Clark intended to hinder and defraud his creditors, given the nature and magnitude of the assets that he failed to report. This is .sufficient evidence to prove fraudulent intent. *In re Retz,*606 F.3d 1189, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2010). The court considered Clark’s explanations for his failure to report his assets and found them unpersuasive. The court did not clearly err in that regard either.

The bankruptcy court also properly denied Clark a discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A), which permits denial of a discharge if the debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath in connection with the case. That provision applies if (1) the debtor made a false oath in connection with the case; (2) the oath related to a material fact; (3) the oath was made knowingly; and (4) the oath was made fraudulently.” *Id.*at 1197 (citation omitted). The bankruptcy court considered Clark’s testimony regarding his intent, his reliance on counsel, and his omitted property, and found that testimony less credible than the evidence establishing that Clark made a false oath knowingly and fraudulently. There was no clear error in that determination.

Because the bankruptcy court properly denied Clark a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), we need not address Clark’s arguments under § 727(a)(3) and (a)(6)(A).

AFFIRMED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                           COHR Inc. and Subsidiaries

                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (unaudited)
                   (in thousands, except net loss per share)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                              June 30,
                                                        -------------------
                                                          1998        1997
                                                         ------      ------
<S>                                                      <C>         <C>

Net loss attributable to common stock ..............     $(1,088)    $ (355)     

Common share information:

  Average shares outstanding for basic loss
    per share ......................................       6,433      6,419

  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants ....
                                                          ------     ------

  Shares for diluted loss per share ................       6,433      6,419 
                                                          ======     ======

Net loss per common share:

  Basic ............................................      $(0.17)    $(0.06)
                                                          ======     ======

  Diluted ..........................................      $(0.17)    $(0.06)
                                                          ======     ======
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11493-11494]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04325]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 3, 2022.

PLACE:  The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the 
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS:  This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, 
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend 
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the 
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting 
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, 
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website 
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), 
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the 
following topics:

    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement 
proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of 
adjudicatory,

[[Page 11494]]

examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please 
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 
551-5400.

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.)

     Dated: February 24, 2022.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04325 Filed 2-25-22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Carl E. Vogel, the Chief Executive Officer of Charter Communications
Holdings, LLC and Charter Communications Holdings Capital Corporation
(collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hereby
certify that, the Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2003 (the Report) filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Carl E. Vogel

Carl E. VogelChief Executive OfficerMarch 25, 2004
**Exhibit 32.A**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB 

OF PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 

FOR THE QUARTERENDED JUNE 26, 2004 

 

The undersigned is the Chief Executive Officer of PinnacleData Systems, Inc. (the “Issuer”). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Issuer for the quarterly period ended June26, 2004. 

 

I, John D. Bair, certify that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBfor the period ended June 26, 2004 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 that information contained in the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents,in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer. 

 

This certification is executed as of August 13, 2004.