alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00286-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.P.A., A CHILD 

 

On Appeal from the 431st District Court 

Denton County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 15-01062-431, Honorable Jonathan M. Bailey, Presiding 

 

February 21, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Appellant C.L., proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s 

order in a suit to modify the parent-child relationship. We dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution.

The appellate record was due November 19, 2018. The clerk’s record was filed 

by this deadline, but the reporter’s record was not. On November 27, the reporter notified 

the court that C.L. had not requested preparation or made payment arrangements for the 

reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(b)(2), (3). By letter of November 28, we 

directed C.L. to request preparation and make acceptable payment arrangements for the 

reporter’s record by December 10. We also admonished her that failure to comply could 
2

cause the court to set a deadline for filing her brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). On 

December 11, the reporter notified the court that C.L. had not complied with the court’s order. 

Accordingly, by letter of December 20, we set C.L.’s brief due January 22, 2019. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(c), 38.6(a).

C.L. did not file a brief by the January 22 deadline. By letter on January 29, 2019, 

we notified C.L. that her brief was overdue and admonished her that if she did not file a 

brief by February 8, the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution without 

further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). To date, C.L. has not filed a brief 

or otherwise communicated with the court.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Per Curiam
(logo) BERKADIA ®

 

 

Annual Statement asto Compliance

For the Year EndedDecember 31, 2019 (the “Reporting Period”)

** **

*Deutsche Mortgage & Asset receiving Corporation*

*Series 2014-UBS6*

 

 

Pursuant to Section3.06 (f) of the Amended and Restated Subservicing Agreement governing thereferenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

 i. A reviewof the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during theReporting Period has been made under my supervision.

 

 ii. To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Amended andRestated Subservicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period and no defaultby the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and iscontinuing.

 

 

Berkadia,

 

 

/s/ Mark E McCool

Mark E. McCool

President

February 10, 2020
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. India Perleta SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-7480

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 18, 2018

Decided: January 23, 2018

India Perleta Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

India Perleta Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon*230strating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 5 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. J. RES. 5

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Thurmond introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
          twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution if 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after its submission to the State for ratification:

                              ``Article--

    ``Any officer of the United States appointed by the President with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, upon conviction of a felony, 
shall forfeit office and all prerogatives, benefits, or compensation 
thereof.''.
                                 <all>
```
# Official Journal C 126/2011

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.126.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 126 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5428 April 2011 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.C_2011.126.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 126

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5428 April 2011

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
  Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part


  The 20th session was held in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo) from 2 to 4 December 2010. |
| 2011/C 126/01 | Minutes of the sitting of Thursday, 2 December 2010 | 1 |
| 2011/C 126/02 | Minutes of the sitting of Friday, 3 December 2010 | 5 |
| 2011/C 126/03 | Minutes of the sitting of Saturday, 4 December 2010 | 8 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES
  Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part


  The 20th session was held in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo) from 2 to 4 December 2010.

Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Partnership Agreement concluded between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific group of States, of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part

The 20th session was held in Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo) from 2 to 4 December 2010.

2011/C 126/01

Minutes of the sitting of Thursday, 2 December 2010

1

2011/C 126/02

Minutes of the sitting of Friday, 3 December 2010

5

2011/C 126/03

Minutes of the sitting of Saturday, 4 December 2010

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

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 Citizens First Financial Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C.
William Landefeld, Chief Executive 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 to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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/ |  | C. William Landefeld                                        
|   
|    |  | C. William Landefeld
Chief Executive Officer
August 14, 2002

22
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16555-16556]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06113]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas, and suggestions on 
improving customer service at the Internal Revenue Service. Due to 
unavoidable delays in this year's approval process, we will not be able 
to meet the 15-calendar notice threshold, but this meeting will still 
be open. This meeting will still be held via teleconference.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, March 30, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 or 
(718) 834-2203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel's Notices and 
Correspondence Project Committee will be held Wednesday, March 30, 
2022, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The public is invited to make oral 
comments or submit written statements for

[[Page 16556]]

consideration. Due to limited time and structure of meeting, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Robert Rosalia. 
For more information, please contact Robert Rosalia at 1-888-912-1227 
or (718) 834-2203, or write TAP Office, 2 Metrotech Center, 100 Myrtle 
Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11201 or contact us at the website: http://www.improveirs.org. The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 17, 2022.
Kevin Brown,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2022-06113 Filed 3-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

February 7, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132281 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

BEVERLY GARGES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132281 

 COA: 260084 

Jackson CC: 03-001448-NO 

PATRICIA TODD, d/b/a LAST CHANCE 

PARTY STORE,

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 12, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant leave to appeal. 

t0131 

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. 

February 7, 2007 

 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



In connection with this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Thomas L. Massie, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:



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



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





|Date:       January 28, 2014 |        | /s/ Thomas Massie                                                  
|---------------------------- | ------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------
|                             | Name:  | Thomas L. Massie                                                   
|                             | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)



This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ignacio MOROLES, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-10220 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed December 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Ignacio Moróles, Jr., Pro Se

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Ignacio Moróles, Jr., 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). Moroles 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 appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue *278for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 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.
#### Dolores Candelaria ESTEBAN-MANUEL and Juan Esteban-Manuel, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73252

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 3, 2017

Cornell Eugene Kirby, Law Office of Cornell Kirby, Seattle, WA, for Petitioners

Brett F. Kinney, 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: LEAVY, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Dolores Candelaria Esteban-Manuel and Juan Esteban-Manuel, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their motio.n to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Sembiring v. Gonzales,*499 F.3d 981, 985 (9th Cir. 2007). We grant the petition for review and remand.

The agency abused its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen where it relied on conjecture in petitioner’s affidavit regarding the possible discarding of mail, and did not consider all of the evidence that petitioners offered to rebut the presumption of delivery. *See id.*at 986-88 (describing evidence relevant to overcome presumption of effective service by regular mail); *Salta v. INS,*314 F.3d 1076, 1079 (9th Cir. 2002) (“delivery by regular mail does not raise the same ‘strong presumption’ [of delivery] as certified mail, and less should be required to rebut such a presumption.”). On remand, the BIA should consider as part of its notice analysis petitioners’ compliance with an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in order both before and after the in absentia removal order was entered. *See Sembiring,*499 F.3d at 989 (lack of motive to avoid immigration proceedings is a factor to be considered).

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4047 — Aviva/ARK Life)

(2006/C 49/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 January 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Royce Thermon JOHNSON, a.k.a. Tossie, a.k.a. Scoe, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-16300 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(November 17, 2017)

*941Michael B. Billingsley, Thomas E. Bor-tón, IV, Gregory R. Dimler, Nicole Gros-noff, Eric W. Hunter, Praveen S. Krishna, Kathryn McHugh, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Before WILSON, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Victor Kelley, appointed counsel for Royce Johnson in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Johnson’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 49 (Monday, March 14, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and 
Human Development; 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 Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel; Contraception Development 
Research Center Program (P50 Clinical Trial Optional).
    Date: March 23, 2022.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health 
and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, 6710B 
Rockledge Drive, Room 2125B, Bethesda, MD 20892-7002 (Video Assisted 
Meeting).
    Contact Person: Derek J. McLean, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National 
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institute 
Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2125B, Bethesda, MD 20892-7002, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#41052433242a6f0c220d24202f012f28296f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a7e3c2d5c2cc89eac4ebc2c6c9e7c9cecf89c0c8d1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to scheduling conflicts.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 9, 2022.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-05330 Filed 3-11-22; 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>
Order entered January 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01691-CV

DAVID W. BARNETT, M.D., INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A TEXAS NEUROSURGERY,

Appellant

V.

JAMES TIMOTHY EDGE AND MAI LYNETT EDGE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-04671-A

ORDER

We GRANT appellant’s January 23, 2014 unopposed motion for extension of time to file 

brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than February 16, 2014. Appellant is cautioned that 

no further extensions will be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 87

Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United States

Senate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was considered and

agreed to

RESOLUTION

Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber

of the United States Senate.

1 Resolved, That paragraph 1 of Rule IV of the Rules

2 for the Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United

3 States Capitol (prohibiting the taking of pictures in the

4 Senate Chamber) be temporarily suspended for the sole

5 and specific purpose of permitting the National Geo6 graphic Society to photograph the United States Senate

7 in actual session on a date and time to be announced by

8 the majority leader, after consultation with the minority

9 leader.
2

SRES 87 ATS

1 SEC. 2. The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is au2 thorized and directed to make the necessary arrangements

3 therefor, which arrangements shall provide for a minimum

4 of disruption to Senate proceedings.

Æ