alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 6 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 18 -00862- CV

DONALD BARNETTE, Appellant

V. MARIA ESTHER COOPER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010-51808

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

This is an attempted appeal from a judgment signed June 11, 2018. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on July 11, 2018. When appellant has filed a timely post-judgment motion, the notice of appeal must be filed within 90 days after the date the judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a). Appellant’s notice of appeal was due September 10, 2018, but was not filed until October 2, 2018.2

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but
within the 15 -day grace period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617–18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15-day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate
Procedure 26.3.
On October 12, 2018, notification was transmitted to all parties of the court’ s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). On October 22, 2018, appellant filed a response in which he argues that his notice of appeal was delayed because his motion for new trial was denied by operation of law on September 24, 2018

. However, the deadline for filing a notice of appeal does not run from the date of the denial of the motion for new trial, but rather from the date of the signing of the judgment

. See Naaman v. Grider , 126 S.W.3d 73, 74 (Tex. 2003) (court dismissed an appeal as untimely because appellant filed notice of appeal based upon date trial court granted motion for judgment, rather than date of judgment itself, which had been entered four weeks earlier) ; see also Overka v. Bauri , No. 14

- 06 -00083-CV, 2006 WL 2074688, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 27, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant’s response fails to demonstrate that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
Exhibit 32(a)

ENERGY FUTURE INTERMEDIATE HOLDING COMPANY LLC

Certificate Pursuant to
Section 906

of Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

The undersigned, John F. Young, Chair, President and Chief Executive of Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 17th day
of February, 2011.



/s/ JOHN F. YOUNGName:

John F. YoungTitle:

Chair, President and Chief Executive


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company
LLC and will be retained by Energy Future Intermediate Holding Company LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 23.1
                          DAVIS ACCOUNTING GROUP, P.C.
                       A Certified Public Accounting Firm
         1957 West Royal Hunte Drive, Suite 150, Cedar City, Utah 84720
                       (435) 865-2808 o FAX (435) 865-2821

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



Vasili Borisov, Director and Chief Executive Officer
Elevated Concepts, Inc.
5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
Northbrook, Illinois 60062

Dear Mr. Borisov,

                   CONSENT OF REGISTERED INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Amended Annual Report
of  Elevated  Concepts,  Inc.  on Form  10-K/A of our  report  on the  financial
statements of the Company as its registered  independent auditors dated November
6, 2008,  as of and for the periods  ended  September  30, 2008,  and 2007,  and
cumulative from inception.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Davis Accounting Group P.C.

Cedar City, Utah,
May 21, 2009.
Order entered September 9 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00685
- CV
ASSOCIATED AIR CENTE R LP, ET AL, Appellant
V. TARY NETWORK, LTD, E T AL, Appellee On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court Dallas C ounty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10
- 01620 

### O RDER
The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record in this case. The record does not include the agreed motion to seal court records dated May 15, 2012 and the order sealing court records dated June 28, 2012. Th e Court ORDERS Gary Fitzsimmons, District Clerk, to file within five (5) days of the date of this order a supplemental clerk’s record including the agreed motion to seal court records and the order sealing court records. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to tra nsmit copies of this order electronically to Gary Fitzsimmons, District Clerk and all parties to the appeal.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-7217

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SHAWN TEMIA STRAIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:14-cr-00060-FL-1; 5:17-cv-00230-FL)

Submitted: December 19, 2017 Decided: December 22, 2017

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Temia Strain, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States 

Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Temia Strain seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 demonstrating 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(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. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Strain 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Germain Santana, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 844]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert Seewald, J.), rendered on or about July 9, 1997, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur — Williams, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.3


SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS WITH DIRECTORS

2009 FISCAL YEAR


          Electro-Sensors,
Inc. (the “Company”) currently does not have a written Board compensation plan.
For the 2009 fiscal year, the Board determined that each of the Company’s
non-employee directors would receive a cash retainer fee of $1,250 per quarter
for their services on the Board. 


38
# United States Court of Appeals

f or the Fifth Circuit

No. 20

- 50701 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff

— Appellee ,

versus

Francisco Hernandez

- Rodriguez, Defendant

— Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:20

- CR

- 129

- 1

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam : *
Francisco Hernandez

- Rodriguez appeals the within

- guidelines sentence of 3 7 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry after removal from the United States. He argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) (1) is

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 6, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50701 Document: 00515809759 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2021No. 20

- 50701

2 unconstitutional because it increases the statutor y maximum sentence based on the fact of a prior felony conviction neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. He concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), and he seeks to preserve the issue for further review. The Government filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance agreeing that the issue is foreclosed and, in the alternative, a motion for an extension of time to file a brief. As the Government argues, and Hernandez

- Rodriguez agrees, the sole issue raised on appeal is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Pineda

Arrellano , 492 F.3d 624, 625

- 26 (5th C ir. 2007). Because the issue is foreclosed, summary affirmance is appropriate. See Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, summary affirmance is GRANTED , and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Th e Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED

. Case: 20-50701 Document: 00515809759 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2021
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 409 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 409

Condemning the acts of terrorism committed by Iranian military proxies, 
including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against 
                   the people of the State of Israel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 17, 2023

  Mr. Gimenez (for himself, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Donalds, Mr. 
Weber of Texas, Ms. Mace, Mr. Bost, Mr. Nunn of Iowa, Ms. Salazar, Mr. 
Babin, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Dunn of Florida, Mr. Reschenthaler, 
 and Mr. Guest) submitted the following resolution; which was referred 
                  to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Condemning the acts of terrorism committed by Iranian military proxies, 
including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against 
                   the people of the State of Israel.

Whereas the democratic, Jewish State of Israel is a key ally and a strategic 
        partner of the United States;
Whereas it remains a standing policy of the United States to support Israel's 
        security efforts;
Whereas American policy has long sought to bring peace to the Middle East and 
        recognize that both the Israeli and Palestinian people should be able to 
        live in safe and sovereign states, free from fear and violence, with 
        mutual recognition; and
Whereas Hamas began launching rockets into the Israeli capital of Jerusalem and 
        surrounding areas belonging to the Jewish people of Israel: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) condemns the acts of terrorism committed by Iranian 
        military proxies, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and the 
        Palestinian Islamic Jihad, against the people of the State of 
        Israel;
            (2) recognizes Jerusalem as the legitimate capital city of 
        the State of Israel;
            (3) supports Israel's efforts of self-determination and 
        collective security against external forces; and
            (4) reaffirms support for policies and initiatives 
        combatting anti-Semitic behavior around the world.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of United eSystems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report), Walter Reid Green, Jr., as Principal Financial Officer of the Company 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 his knowledge, 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/ Walter Reid Green, Jr.Walter Reid Green, Jr.Chief Financial OfficerDate:  November 22, 2010








This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit 15.2
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration Statements:
 
 (1)
Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-169813, as amended) of Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp., and
 
 (2)
Registration Statement (Form F-3 No. 333-166697) of Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp.
 
 of our reports dated April 26, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) of Seanergy Maritime Holdings Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2012.
  
 /s/ Ernst & Young (Hellas) Certified Auditors Accountants S.A.
 
 April 26, 2013
 Athens, Greece
Exhibit 32.1




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

     I, Joseph A. Orlando,  as Principal  Executive Officer of Leucadia National
Corporation - Arizona (the "Company")  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

     (1) the  accompanying  Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the U.S.  Securities and Exchange  Commission  (the "Report")
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



Dated:  November 12, 2003
                                              By:  /s/  Joseph A. Orlando
                                                   ----------------------
                                                   Joseph A. Orlando
                                                   Principal Executive Officer





A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Leucadia  National  Corporation-Arizona  and will be  retained  by
Leucadia  National  Corporation-Arizona  and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: "Hill, Donna B." <DBHILL@southernco.com> 

 

 To: Josh Hall/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Cc: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA 

 

 Date: 10/13/2009 04:01 PM 

 

 Subject: Draft Sampling Instructions 

 

Josh,

As promised, attached are the instructions that I asked Dr. Boothe to

prepare for the collection of 7 or 8 split samples for the EPA Collision

Cell ICP-MS Optimization Study. Please feel free to use any or all of

these instructions for your use. Our primary focus is to collect

identical splits for the study so that we can compare analytical results

by different methods. We ask that three (3) splits be sent directly to

Albion Environmental for the confirming analyses. We will more than

likely analyze the samples by HR-ICP-MS, ICP-AES, Se by HGAF, and

DRC-ICP-MS. We may also consider sending samples to a collision cell

laboratory. Please advise on the list of trace elements that you will

be analyzing by collision cell. As we discussed by phone, I would

appreciate a list of the 9 facilities that will be asked to provide

samples for this study so that we can help them if they have any

questions about the sampling instructions.

Please call or email me if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Donna

205-587-4846

(See attached file: DRAFT_EPA_CRC_Study_Sampling_Insts_10-13-09_REV.doc)
**'"oui"<~Qe Stryker**  Facility

**--~~ ~;.;J**  **Stack**

**:** <400 ' AG L Class G , SFC-700' AGL Class E , 700'AGL-FL T L V L

**____.[**

**,_ ..,.**  **Richland** Facility k : <400' AGL lass G, SFC-700' AG L l ass E , 700'AG L-F LT L V L Deviance Memorial (DFI) Radio : CTA F 1 22
. 7



### ~~ **;~=~~~~~~**
**.:;~ ¥r=;~~4~~** 
**~'IE ~**  illiams CO 

### (OG6) Rad i o : CTAF 122.8
HonorableVera V. Fogg

CountyAttorney Xardeman County Quanah, Texas Dear Miss Fogg: .OpinionNo. O-4715 Fie: County Superintendent is not required to pay poll tax in order to legally serve as such officer.

., Your request for opinion upon the following stated question:. ':: I, .~

. . . . ~. %an a personbe elected to the office of County School Su*rintendent, and legally serve,when he has 

### .not paid his poll tax, and thus is not a qualifiedvoter of the county inwhich he is elected? I! 11

. . . . has been received and carefully consideredby this department. Article 2688, Vernon's AnnotatedTexas Civil Statutes, sets forth the qualificationsof the County School Cuperintendent; this Article does not require thathe pay a poll tax or be a qualifiedvoter. Article 293, Vernon'sAnnotated Texas Civil Statutes, sets out the ineligibility of certainpersons to serve as public of'ficials and prescribes residential requirementsof'such officials; thisArticle does not make personsvho have not paid theif-.poll taxes or who are not qualifiedvoters ineligible to hold public office. The nature and purpose of a poll tax is that of .a necessary pereqtiisite'to the right of certain designated classes to VCM- Unless otherwi.se provided, the office of a poll tax is not that of a necessary prerequisite to holding office. Accordingly, '

it is our opinion, and you a?e so arvised, that a person need not tohave paid a poll tax in order to be elected and to qualify for the office of County Superintendent.HonorableVeraV. Fcgg, Page ,#2 (O-4716)

Very truly yours, ATTORI\%YGENERAL OF TMAS s/Wm. J. Farming

APPROVED July 24, 1942 s/ GERALDC. MANN ATTORNEY (XNFZALOF TEXAS APPROVED OPINION CI~MITTJ~E BY B.W. B. CHAIRMAN BY Wm. J. Fanning Assistant
#### In the Matter of Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., Respondent, v New York City Water Board et al., Appel*301lants.

[720 NYS2d 7]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.), entered June 15, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR article 78, to the extent of holding that petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the two-year back-billing limitation contained in part V, § 3 (A) of the 1997 Rate Schedule, and remanded the proceeding to respondent Department of Environmental Protection for recalculation in accordance with that provision, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the interpretation of regulations made by the agency responsible for their administration is generally to be accorded deference, an agency is not thereby freed of the obligation to read those regulations reasonably and rationally *(see, Matter of Howard v Wyman,*28 NY2d 434). Respondent Department of Environmental Protection’s interpretation of “unbilled service [s],” as that term was used in the version of respondent Water Board’s two-year back-billing limitation regulation applicable to the present dispute, i.e., the version in effect prior to the amendment of the aforesaid back-billing limitation regulation in 1998, was unreasonable since it was irreconcilable with the plain meaning of the governing regulation. This regulation simply provided, in relevant part, that “no bill for previously unbilled service * * * shall be made after the expiration of twenty-four months from the time service to which the bill * * * pertains was provided.” Nowhere in this regulation do we find support for respondents’ curious contention that service for which a customer had not been billed for over two years might nonetheless remain billable because the service had been previously billed to the wrong party. Such restriction of the regulation’s evidently intended protective scope required and eventually was accomplished through promulgation of a new, prospectively applicable regulation; it was not properly achieved by means of a retroactively applicable agency gloss. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Ellerin and Lerner, JJ.