alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JORGE OLMOS,

Appellant,

v.

DIANE OLMOS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-24-00153-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCM4800)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is before the Court on its own motion to determine whether it should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Because Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss 

the appeal.

A party perfects a civil appeal by timely filing a notice of appeal within 30 days after a 

final judgment is signed. Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. A timely post-trial motion, such as a motion for 

new trial, extends the timeline for perfecting an appeal to 90 days after the judgment is signed. Id.

26.1(a)(1). A motion for new trial is timely filed within 30 days of the date the judgment is signed. 

Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(a).

Here, Appellant filed a motion for new trial on February 22, 2024, and a notice of appeal 

on July 1, 2024, attempting to appeal the trial court’s final divorce decree signed on February 5, 
2

2024. On July 1, 2024, the Clerk of this Court sent Appellant a letter indicating that the appeal was 

not timely perfected. The letter gave notice of our intent to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction after 20 days unless grounds were shown for the Court to continue the appeal. See

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). As of the date of this order, Appellant has not responded to this Court’s 

notice.

Accordingly, we find Appellant failed to perfect his appeal because he filed the notice of 

appeal outside of the applicable time limits. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Id.

26.1; 42.3(a), (c); 43.2(f).

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 29, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
Exhibit 23

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT

The
Board of Directors
American Power Conversion Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-25873, 33-54416, 333-32563, 333-78595,
333-80541, 333-80569 and 333-91994) on Form S-8 and (No. 333-107559) on Form S-3 of American Power
Conversion Corporation of our reports dated February 9, 2004, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of American Power Conversion Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,
2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2003, and the related schedule, which reports appear in the 2003 annual report on Form 10-K of American Power Conversion Corporation.

| | KPMG LLP
| | --------

Providence,
Rhode Island
March 15, 2004

75

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
         REGISTRANT'S  BALANCE SHEET AS OF FEBRUARY 28, 1997 AND THE  STATEMENTS
         OF OPERATIONS  AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND
         IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                    0000835585
<NAME>                   C-Phone Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                     1,398,049
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                542,042
<ALLOWANCES>                                 120,000
<INVENTORY>                                1,341,931
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3,244,088
<PP&E>                                     1,086,690
<DEPRECIATION>                               834,777
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             3,650,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        925,322
<BONDS>                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      43,554
<OTHER-SE>                                 2,681,371
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               3,650,247
<SALES>                                    1,890,213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           2,042,878
<CGS>                                      1,628,287
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,710,366
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              90,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,511
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (3,008,224)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (3,008,224)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (3,008,224)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.69)
        


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
FOR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER I, Bahman Atefi, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Alion Science and Technology
Corporation; 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) for the registrant and we 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 registrant, 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)
    [Reserved]c)
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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; andd)
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb)
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: May 13, 2005 By:
    
    /s/ Bahman AtefiName: Bahman AtefiTitle: Chief Executive Officer
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4979 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 

Act to clarify the preference for local firms in the award of certain 

contracts for disaster relief activities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2006 

Mr. PICKERING introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify the preference for local 

firms in the award of certain contracts for disaster relief 

activities. 

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 ‘‘Local Community Re5 covery Act of 2006’’. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4979 IH 

1 SEC. 2. USE OF LOCAL FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR DIS2 ASTER RELIEF ACTIVITIES. 

3 Section 307 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

4 and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5150) is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘In carrying 

6 out this section, a contract or agreement may be set aside 

7 for award based on a specific geographic area.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. EXPEDITING DISASTER RELIEF ACTIVITIES DURING 

9 FISCAL YEAR 2006. 

10 Any solicitation made by the Corps of Engineers dur11 ing fiscal year 2006 concerning section 307 of the Robert 

12 T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

13 (42 U.S.C. 5150) shall be final and conclusive and shall 

14 not be subject to administrative or judicial review. Any 

15 administrative or judicial action or proceeding arising 

16 from such solicitation that is pending on the date of enact17 ment of this Act shall be immediately dismissed by the 

18 court or administrative agency in which the action or pro19 ceeding was brought or is currently pending. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
No. 09-9199.

#### William Howard O’Neil, Jr., Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1024, 130 S. Ct. 1929,

176 L. Ed. 2d 396,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2455.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 859.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The certifications set forth below are herebysubmitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to, and solely forthe purpose of complying with, Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of theUnited States Code in connection with the filing on the date hereof with theSecurities and Exchange Commission of the Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A ofMAIR Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) for the fiscal yearended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”).

 

Eachof the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,respectively, of the Company, hereby certifies that, as of the end of theperiod covered by the Report:

 

1.               Such Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  PAUL F. FOLEY                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                   |
| Paul  F. Foley                                         |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer                 |
| July  29, 2005                                         |
|                                                   |
|                                                   |
| /s/  ROBERT E. WEIL                                    |   |
|                                                   |
| Robert  E. Weil                                        |
| Vice  President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
| July 29, 2005                                          |
|                                                        |        |  |

 

----
Summary of Current Director Compensation



 Exhibit 10.29 
 Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation

 Beginning January 1, 2011, non-employee directors each receive the following compensation for their service on the Board:

  

	•	 	 $60,000 annual cash retainer 


  

	•	 	 $2,000 meeting fee for each meeting of the Board (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise
determined by the Chairman of the Board) 


  

	•	 	 2,000 shares of the Company’s common stock that carry a six-month restriction on transfer 



The Chairman of the Board received an additional annual retainer of $60,000, and members of Board committees may receive the following amounts, depending
upon their involvement with each committee of the Board: 
  

	•	 	 Audit Committee—$15,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee; $5,000 annual cash retainer for other Committee members.
Members of the Committee receive a $2,000 fee for each meeting of the Committee (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 



 

	•	 	 Compensation Committee—$10,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee. Members of the committee receive a $1,500 fee for
each committee meeting (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 



 

	•	 	 Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee—$5,000 annual cash retainer for the Chairperson of the Committee. Members of the committee
receive a $1,500 fee for each committee meeting (one-half of this amount is paid for participation in any telephonic meeting unless otherwise determined by the Committee Chairperson). 



Directors have the choice to elect to take all or a portion of their Board fees in common stock of the Company and may defer all or part of their fee
compensation. Directors are reimbursed for expenses incurred in connection with attending Board and committee meetings.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 18-2448

___________________________

Joseph Lamont French

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant

v.

Central Credit Services; Integrity Solution Services; Radius Global Services

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: March 7, 2019

Filed: March 18, 2019

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and STRAS, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

In this action under the Equal Pay Act, Joseph French appeals after the District

Court1

 granted summary judgment in favor of his former employer on his wage1

The Honorable Ronnie L. White, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.
discrimination and retaliation claims. After de novo review, we conclude that the

District Court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants. See Torgerson

v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.) (en banc) (standard of review),

cert. denied, 565 U.S. 978 (2011). French’s wage-discrimination claim failed as a

matter of law because the challenged pay differential was undisputedly explained by

a valid factor other than sex. See Price v. N. States Power Co., 664 F.3d 1186, 1191

(8th Cir. 2011) (discussing the burden-shifting framework for a wage-discrimination

claim under the Equal Pay Act). Further, his retaliation claim failed as a matter of law

because he did not present a causal connection between protected activity and his

termination. See Pye v. Nu Aire, Inc., 641 F.3d 1011, 1021 (8th Cir. 2011)

(discussing the burden-shifting framework for a retaliation claim). Finally, contrary

to French’s suggestion on appeal, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

managing discovery in this case. See Stringfellow v. Perry, 869 F.2d 1140, 1143 (8th

Cir. 1989) (“District courts are afforded wide discretion in their handling of discovery

matters.”).

We affirm the judgment.

______________________________

-2-
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-2106

TAFADZWA NHIRA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

THOMPSON HOSPITALITY; COMPASS GROUP; MAURICE JENOURE; JILL 

BROWN; DINA ZAIKOUK; DANA MITCHELL; DAN KELLY; ABDELMAJID 

ZAGHARI,

Defendants – Appellees,

and

MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; BOWIE STATE; TODD BURGE; NANCY 

WEDINER; MICHAEL AMOS; ALESSANDRIA MCGWIRE,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00676-WMN)

Submitted: February 28, 2017 Decided: March 13, 2017

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tafadzwa Nhira, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Patrick Dowd, LITTLER 

MENDELSON PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Tafadzwa Nhira appeals the district court’s order granting 

summary judgment to Defendants on his whistleblower claim under 

the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (2012), and his claims 

of retaliation, failure to promote, discriminatory discharge, 

and discriminatory compensation, in violation of Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 

2000e–17 (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court.* Nhira v. Thompson Hospitality, No. 1:14-

cv-00676-WMN (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED

 * To the extent that Nhira’s informal brief challenges the 

district court’s dismissal of Morgan State University and Bowie 

State University, Nhira did not identify the district court’s 

dismissal orders in his notice of appeal, and consequently, we 

lack jurisdiction to consider those orders. See Fed. R. App. P. 

3(c)(1)(B); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 176-77 (4th Cir. 

2014). Furthermore, insofar as Nhira requests remand because 

the district court decided Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment before Defendants answered Nhira’s requests for 

admissions, we discern no abuse of discretion by the district 

court. See United States ex rel. Becker v. Westinghouse 

Savannah River Co., 305 F.3d 284, 290 (4th Cir. 2002).
No. 09-9288.

#### Jason G. Van Norman, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1054, 130 S. Ct. 2355,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3097.

176 L. Ed. 2d 570,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 362 Fed. Appx. 597.
No. 09-9576.

#### Roosevelt Cornell Sanders, Petitioner v. Terry O’Brien, Warden, et al.

559 U.S. 1080, 130 S. Ct. 2122,

176 L. Ed. 2d 745,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3220.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 333 Fed. Appx. 791.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**     I, Vincent E. Estrada, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the registrant, Visicu, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:          (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;          (b) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];          (c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on suchevaluation; and          (d) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Dated: August 6, 2007 By:  /s/ Vincent E. Estrada    Vincent E. Estrada    Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer
RECEIVEDCOURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS                6/13/2016      ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 17

- 00221

- CR

Aspen Warren

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1443873D )

August 9, 2018

Opinion by Justice Pittman

(nfp)



### J UDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Mark T. Pittman

__ _______________ Justice Mark T. Pittman
No. D-2457.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Anthony J. Siciliano.

559 U.S. 1035, 130 S. Ct. 2087,

176 L. Ed. 2d 433,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2923.

March 29, 2010.

Disbarment order entered.

Former order, 558 U.S. 1043, 130 S. Ct. 793, 175 L. Ed. 2d 551, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 8464.