alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        249
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                            196
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                         (1)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       272
<SALES>                                             34
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    45
<CGS>                                               30
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       40
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (1)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  25
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (29)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (29)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (29)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.60)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN the INTEREST OF C.P.K., a Child

No. 07-17-00287-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Amarillo.

February 21, 2018

Peter Thomas Kane, pro se.

Byron D. Thompson, College Station, Robert A. Swearingen, for Elizabeth Marie Wood.

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

**ABATEMENT AND REMAND**

Per Curiam

Appellant, E.W., parent of C.P.K., appeals from the trial court's judgment signed on April 20, 2017. On May 9, 2017, she filed a Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 296. The trial court did not issue same within twenty days of the request. Within thirty days of May 9, E.W. notified the trial court that its findings and conclusions were past due per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297. The findings and conclusions of the trial court remain outstanding, and the omission was raised by E.W. in her appellant's brief.

As a general rule, an appellant has been harmed if she has to guess at the reason the trial court ruled against her. *See**Larry F. Smith* , *Inc. v. Weber Co., Inc.* , 110 S.W.3d 611, 614 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, pet. denied). The appropriate remedy is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to file the absent findings and conclusions. *In re Marriage of Stegall* , No. 07-15-00392-CV, 2016 WL 3364875, at *2, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6361 at *3 (Tex. App.-Amarillo June 15, 2016, no pet.) (per curiam).

We now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court with instructions to issue and file findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its judgment per Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297, Texas Family Code § 154.130, and other relevant provisions of the Family Code, if any. The trial court is directed to *840cause its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk's record and cause that supplemental record to be filed with the Clerk of this Court no later than March 20, 2018. Should appellant care to file a supplemental brief once the findings and conclusions are executed, such brief is due no later than twenty days from the date the findings and conclusions are filed with this court. Should appellee care to file a supplemental brief responding to any new issues raised in appellant's supplemental brief, the appellee's response is due no later than twenty days after the filing of appellant's supplemental brief. Should additional time be needed by the trial court to comply with this order, it may request same by March 20, 2018.

It is so ordered.
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: May 19, 2016 106162

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NATHANIEL T. JONES, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: April 25, 2016 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch, Clark and Aarons, JJ.

__________ John A. Cirando, Syracuse, for appellant. Alexander Lesyk, Special Prosecutor, Norwood, for respondent.

__________ Aarons, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Richards, J.), rendered July 17, 2013, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. In 2008, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the third degree and was sentenced to five years of probation and ordered to pay restitution. In 2010, defendant's term of probation was extended by 299 days after he admitted to violating the terms of his probation. In July 2013, defendant was charged with violating the terms of his probation by, among other things, failing to report on multiple occasions to his probation officer as directed, failing to successfully complete substance abuse treatment, failing to pay restitution and testing positive for marihuana and oxycodone. Pursuant to an agreed-upon-2- 106162

disposition, defendant admitted to all but one of these charges. In exchange, County Court revoked his probation and imposed the promised sentence of 365 days in jail. Defendant now appeals. We affirm. Defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea is unpreserved for review inasmuch as the record fails to indicate that he moved to withdraw his plea of guilty to the probation violations (see People v Moulton, 134 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2015]; People v McGregor, 119 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 991 [2015]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation requirement is not applicable where, as here, defendant's responses during his plea allocution were lucid, rational, appropriate and not inconsistent with his guilt or cast any doubt on the voluntariness of his plea (see People v Johnson, 125 AD3d 1052, 1052-1053 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1073 [2015]; People v McCann, 289 AD2d 703, 703-704 [2001]). Defendant also argues that his 365-day jail sentence imposed on July 17, 2013 is harsh and excessive. Given that defendant has completed that jail sentence during the pendency of this appeal, any claims related to sentencing are moot (see People v Cancer, 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]; People v Pozzi, 117 AD3d 1325, 1325 [2014]). Lahtinen, J.P., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
### CAUSE NO. 12-14-00220-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EAST TEXAS MEDICAL } APPEALED FROM 115TH

CENTER GILMER,

APPELLANT

V. } DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

BIRDER PORTER, } UPSHUR COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

PER CURIAM ORDER

The Court, having reviewed Appellant’s Brief and Appellee’s Brief, is of the opinion that

further briefing is necessary on the issue presented by the parties.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that East Texas Medical Center Gilmer, on or before

thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, shall submit additional briefing to the Court on

whether Birder Porter’s claim is a “health care liability claim” in light of Ross v. St. Luke’s

Episcopal Hosp.

, No. 13-0439, 2015 WL 2009744 (Tex. May 1, 2015) and its progeny.

IT IS ALSO ORDERED that Birder Porter, on or before thirty (30) days after the date

further briefing is filed in this Court by East Texas Medical Center Gilmer, shall respond to such

further briefing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that East Texas Medical Center Gilmer, if it deems

necessary, on or before fifteen (15) days after the response of Birder Porter is filed in this Court,

may reply to such response.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that this appeal is hereby removed from this Court’s

submission docket as well as its administrative docket until further of this Court or the filing of

Appellant’s Brief, whichever is the earlier date.

WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12 th

Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT

, at my office this the 6th

day of August 2015

, A.D.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

B y:

________________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
STATE of North Carolina v. Martellus SANDERS, Defendant.

No. COA18-954

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 7, 2019

NO ERROR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

KATHY ANN COLL

v.

FR. CYPRIAN DURU, AN INDIVIDUAL; 

ST. TERESA OF AVILA ROMAN 

CATHOLIC PARISH; THE MOST 

REVEREND DAVID ALLEN ZUBIK, DD., 

MS ED.; THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH

PETITION OF: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC 

DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH; THE MOST 

REVEREND DAVID ALLEN ZUBIK; AND 

ST. TERESA OF AVILA ROMAN 

CATHOLIC PARISH

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 81 WM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of November, 2019, the Application for Extraordinary 

Relief is DENIED.
Exhibit 32.1
------------


                    Certification Pursuant to 18 USC ss.1350,
      as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Strategika,  Inc.  (Company) on Form
10-QSB  (Report)  for the  quarter  ended  June  30,  2003,  as  filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof.  I, Rene Larrave,  Chief
Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

/s/ Rene Larrave
----------------
Rene Larrave
Chief Executive and
Chief Financial Officer

Dated: August 7, 2003
       --------------
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in their respective capacity as an officer,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of their respective knowledge,
that:



Dated:
March 25, 2009

/s/ RAYMOND J. PACINI Raymond J. Pacini Chief Executive Officer/s/ SANDRA G. SCIUTTO Sandra G. Sciutto Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0155]
RIN 1625-AA01


Anchorage Regulations; Port of New York; Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is correcting the preamble to a final rule 
that appeared in the Federal Register of March 11, 2009 (74 FR 10484). 
The preamble incorrectly referred to Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 5100.1, instead of Department of Homeland Security 
Management Directive 0023.1.

DATES: Effective April 10, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LT Edward Munoz, Chief, Waterways 
Management Division, telephone 718-354-2353.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. E9-5095 appearing on page 10484 
of the Federal Register of Wednesday, March 11, 2009, the following 
correction is made:
    1. On page 10486, in the second column, correct the ``Environment'' 
section to read: ``We have analyzed this rule under Department of 
Homeland Security Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction 
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and 
have concluded this action is one of a category of actions which do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, 
paragraph 34(f), of the Instruction. This rule involves a regulation 
reducing the size of an anchorage ground.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(f), of the Instruction, an 
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion 
determination are not required for this rule.''

    Dated: March 12, 2009.
Steve G. Venckus,
Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. E9-5757 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 
33-49372 on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-24642 on Form S-4 and 
Registration Statement No. 33-61750 on Form S-3 of Redwood Empire Bancorp of 
our report dated January 26, 1999 (February 22, 1999, as to Note N) appearing 
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Redwood Empire Bancorp for the year 
ended December 31, 1998.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
San Francisco, California
March 26, 1999
exv10w113






Exhibit 10.113




AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT




     This is an amendment, dated as of March 8, 2011 (the “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement
made as of the 1st day of March, 2000 (the “Employment Agreement”), by and between
SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (the “Employer”), and ROCCO A. ORTENZIO, an
individual (the “Employee”).



Background




     Employer and Employee executed and delivered the Employment Agreement, that certain Amendment
No. 1 to the Employment Agreement, dated as of August 8, 2000, that certain Amendment No. 2 to the
Employment Agreement, dated as of February 23, 2001, that certain Amendment No. 3 to the Employment
Agreement, dated as of April 24, 2001, that certain Amendment No. 4 to the Employment Agreement,
dated as of September 17, 2001, that certain Amendment No. 5 to the Employment Agreement, dated as
of February 24, 2005, that certain Amendment No. 6 to the Employment Agreement, dated as of
December 18, 2008 and that certain Amendment No. 7 to the Employment Agreement, dated as of
November 10, 2010. Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Employment Agreement as provided
herein.



Agreement



1. Section 5.02(c) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to
read as follows and all references to Section 5.02(c) of the Employment Agreement shall be deleted:




     “(c) Intentionally Omitted.”


2. Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall continue in effect in accordance with
its terms.




     Please indicate your acceptance of the above Amendment by signing below in the space
indicated.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

	 	 	Very truly yours,	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION, a

 Delaware Corporation	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Michael E. Tarvin
 

Michael E. Tarvin,
	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Executive Vice President	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Rocco A. Ortenzio	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Rocco A. Ortenzio
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed 

March 10, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00114-CR

IN RE ANDRE LATROI WILLIAMS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

184th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1642742

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 23, 2022, relator Andre Latroi Williams filed a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Abigail 

Anstasio, presiding judge of the 184th District Court of Harris County, to set a 

reasonable bond pending appeal. 
2

Relator pleaded guilty to the offense of robbery-threats. The trial court held 

the pre-sentence investigation hearing on January 6, 2022, and the sentencing 

hearing on January 12, 2022. The trial court sentenced relator to eight years’

incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. On January 26, 2022, 

relator filed a motion to set reasonable bail pending motion for new trial. Relator 

does not state whether the trial court has ruled on the motion to set bail no higher 

than $5,000. 

Original jurisdiction to grant a habeas corpus in a criminal case is vested in 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, the county courts, or a judge 

in those courts. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.05; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.3d 

586, 588 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding). We do not have original 

habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the denial of bail. Ortiz v. State, 

299 S.W.3d 930, 932 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, orig. proceeding); Ex parte 

Enrique, 2 S.W.3d 362, 363 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco 1999, no pet.); see also Tex. 

Gov’t Code § 22.221(d) (providing that original habeas jurisdiction of courts of 

appeals is limited to cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because individual 

violated order, judgment, or decree previously entered in civil case). 

Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus for lack 

of jurisdiction.1

1 Moreover, relator has the right to appeal an order denying him bail pending his appeal. 

See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.04(g) (providing for preferential appeal for complaints about 

trial court’s action in denying bail pending appeal). Id. An appeal from an order denying bail 

pending appeal is separate from the appeal of conviction and must be perfected by a separate notice 

of appeal. Enrique, 2 S.W.3d at 363.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Poissant, and Wilson.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 11380]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Veterans' Employment and 
Training


The Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and 
Employer Outreach (ACVETEO); Notice of Cancellation of Open Meeting

    The quarterly the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, 
Training and Employer Outreach (ACVETEO) meeting scheduled for Friday, 
March 20, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., at the Omni Hotel, 401 
Chestnut Street, second floor meeting room, Philadelphia, PA, has been 
postponed until further notice.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 11th day of March 2009.
John M. McWilliam,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Veterans' Employment and Training Service.
[FR Doc. E9-5659 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
Randy WOODS, Appellant v. PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS & COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE, INC.; Hon. Jonathan R. Weatherby, Administrative Law Judge; and Workers' Compensation Board, Appellees

NO. 2017-CA-001240-WC

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

MARCH 30, 2018; 10:00 A.M.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Sherry Brashear, Harlan, Kentucky.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: Robert L. Swisher, Workers' Compensation Board, Frankfort, Kentucky, Barry W. Lewis, Private Investigations & Counter-Intelligence, Inc., Corbin, Kentucky, Jonathan Weatherby, Lexington, Kentucky.

BEFORE: DIXON, JOHNSON, AND JONES, JUDGES.

*OPINION AND ORDER*1

1

When final disposition of an appeal is made by an "Opinion and Order," as in this case, the party adversely affected may move for reconsideration as provided by Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.38(2) within ten days of entry, but a petition for rehearing is unauthorized. CR 76.32(1).

JOHNSON, JUDGE:

*855Having considered the motion of Appellee, Private Investigations & Counter-Intelligence, Inc., to dismiss the above-styled appeal, the response, and being otherwise sufficiently advised, the Court ORDERS that the motion be, and it is hereby, GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the above-styled appeal be DISMISSED as improperly taken.

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 342.290 provides that this Court may review decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board pursuant to Section 111 of the Kentucky Constitution and rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 76.25(2) authorizes this Court to review decisions of the Board upon the filing of a petition within 30 days of the Board's final decision.

In the present case, Appellant has attempted to appeal directly to this Court from the decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upon remand from a decision of the Board. As stated above, this Court is not authorized to undertake such review. Kentucky law does not permit a litigant to bypass the Board. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.

ALL CONCUR.
EXHIBIT
      32.1











**CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 In
        connection with the Quarterly Report of Lease Equity Appreciation Fund I,
        L.P.
        (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 as
        filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
        “Report”), I, Crit S. DeMent, 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:
 
 (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.






November
      14, 2005       /s/
      Crit S.
      DeMent


Crit
      S.
      DeMent


Chief
      Executive Officer
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the“Companies”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 (the “Report”), I, David W. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: 

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

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

Date: November 6,2009 

 

The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.