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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellate case name: Cecilia Clinkscale v. Corporate Auto Services, Inc., et al.

Appellate case number: 01-15-00938-CV

Trial court case number: 1059855

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On December 23, 2015, appellant, Cecilia Clinkscale, proceeding pro se, filed a 

notice of appeal in the trial court from the order denying her verified motion to reinstate 

case on docket, signed on September 23, 2015, in this contract action. Because appellant 

filed an affidavit of indigence for appellate costs in this Court, the Clerk of this Court 

forwarded it to the trial clerk on December 29, 2015, and requested that an indigent 

clerk’s record be filed within 30 days. On January 6, 2016, the indigent clerk’s record 

was filed in this Court attaching the trial court’s order, signed on January 5, 2016, 

sustaining the trial clerk’s contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 20.1(e)(1), (i)(4).

A party claiming indigence for appellate costs may seek review of a trial court’s 

order sustaining a contest to her affidavit of indigence by filing a motion challenging the 

order, within 10 days of that order, in the appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(j)(1), 

(2). Here, because appellant failed to timely file such a motion, the Clerk of this Court is 

directed to mark appellant not indigent for purposes of appellate costs. See id. 20.1(j)(2).

Accordingly, because appellant has not established indigence, it is ORDERED

that she pay the $205.00 filing fee to the Clerk of this Court and file evidence with the 

Clerk of this Court of payment or arrangements to pay the trial clerk for the $234.00 

clerk’s record fee within 30 days of the date of this order, or this appeal may be 

dismissed without further notice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually 

Date: February 2, 2016
### MANDATE


## Court of Appeals **First District of Texas**

NO. 01

- 14

- 00762

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF B.D .S

. Appeal from the 313th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2013

- 06337J).

TO THE 313TH DISTRIC T COURT OF HARRIS CO UNTY, GREETINGS :

Before this Court, on the 16th day of June 2015, the case upon appeal to revise or to reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on August 14, 2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered June 16, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice Higley.WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

August 28, 2015

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK OF THE COURT
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 611 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 660) to amend chapter 44 

of title 18, United States Code, to require the safe storage of firearms, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2023 

Ms. DELAURO submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 660) to amend 

chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require 

the safe storage of firearms, and for other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in 

3 the House of the bill (H.R. 660) to amend chapter 44 

4 of title 18, United States Code, to require the safe storage 

5 of firearms, and for other purposes. All points of order 

6 against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 

7 be considered as read. All points of order against provi8 sions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall 

9 be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:24 Jul 26, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR611.IH HR611

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 611 IH 

1 ment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 

2 except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and con3 trolled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

4 Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; 

5 and (2) one motion to recommit. 

6 SEC. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

7 the consideration of H.R. 660. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
C.B., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D16-902

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 14, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
m Mayor Stanley A. Clouse (M l TELEPHONE • (308)233-3216 

City of Kearney V ^ B / FAX • (308) 234-6399 

18 East 22"^ Street \^H»// E-MAIL • mavor(5)kearneVQov.orq 

P. O. Box 1180 riTYAF tFAftVFY WEBSITE • www.cityofkearnev.org 

Kearney, NE 68848-1180 '-' " ^''^^'^'^'^'^' 

OoT-osr-m(?-l?l'S August 10, 2010 

Dennis J. DeVany 

Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

400 7*^ Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 ^ 

RE: Kearney's Support of DEN-EAR Route Operated by Great Lakes 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

The Essential Air Service program has been and continues to be a vital economic lifeline for 

communities across the country, and especially in rural Nebraska. The vitality and continuing 

growth of out local economy is sustainable in large part because of the air service that has 

been supported and connections to the national and international air transportation system that 

exist today. Kearney area residents understand the value of this air service and are 

appreciative of the continued support from the Department of Transportation in assuring this 

crucial link continues. Kearney area residents understand the importance of continuing the 

existing air service links to Denver with Great Lakes for the following reasons: 

• Satisfaction with their service levels 

• Relationship with their management, both top management and marketing personnel 

• Management has generally worked well with Kearney in air service promotion 

• Code-share with United and Frontier allows passengers with a Denver connection to 

clear security only once 

• The public in the catchment-area prefer a Denver connection due to the number of daily 

flights, availability of low-cost carriers, and multitude of destinations 

• Continuing with Great Lakes as the commercial earner in Kearney maintains service 

whereas changing carriers may cause a disruption in service 

Sincerely yours, 

CITY OF KEARNEY 

'=^:ifs:vs^^5sv»^(X.CA33V3s:iji_ 

Stanley A. Clouse 

Mayor 

SAC:sjb
Section 906
Certification

Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C.
Section 1350

As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 40-F of Ballard Power Systems Inc., a corporation organized under the laws
of British Columbia (the Company), for the period ending December 31, 2016 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), each of the undersigned officers 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:

|1. |  | The Report fully complies with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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: March 3, 2017 | /s/
      R. Randall MacEwen                                                   | 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|                     | R. Randall
    MacEwen                                                        
|                     | President and Chief
      Executive Officer (principal executive officer)     
|                    
|                    
|Dated: March 3, 2017 | /s/
      Tony Guglielmin                                                      | 
|                     | Tony
  Guglielmin                                                             
|                     | Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer (principal financial
officer)

---
Melissa WHITE, Appellant, v. STEAK AND SHAKE, INC. and Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

No. ED 106938

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

FILED: June 25, 2019

FOR APPELLANT: Samuel Henderson, 1027 South Vandeventer Ave. 6th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63110, Erin E. Williams, 7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650, Clayton, MO 63105.

For Respondents: Mandolin S. Roberson, 421 East Dunklin Street, Jefferson City, MO 65101.

Before Roy L. Richter, P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., and Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

*525Melissa White ("Appellant") appeals from the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") denying unemployment benefits after her employment at Steak 'N Shake ("Respondent") ended on January 5, 2018.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Keith L. MARKS v. STATE

CR-15-1451

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 7, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 13310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6692]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

March 20, 2009.
    The Department of Treasury will submit the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or 
after the date of publication of this notice. Copies of the 
submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance 
Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should 
be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department 
Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 11000, and 1750 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before April 27, 2009 
to be assured of consideration.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-2119.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Notice 2008-79, Tax-exempt Housing Bonds and 2008 Housing 
Legislation.
    Description: This information is being requested from issuers of 
tax-exempt bonds who issue bonds subject to the new volume cap or 
utilize proceeds of mortgage revenue bonds to refinance certain 
qualified subprime mortgage loans, as provided in the Housing 
Assistance Tax Act of 2008, enacted July 30, 2008 (``2008 Housing 
Act''). We are asking issuers to report bonds issued pursuant to the 
new volume cap on existing form 8038 that is already required to be 
filed in connection with bond issues, and issuers of mortgage revenue 
bonds to attach a schedule to the 8038 providing a reasonable estimate 
of the total expected principal amount that will be utilized to 
refinance qualified subprime mortgage loans. We are asking issuers to 
file a second copy of an existing IRS Form 8328 in order to make the 
election to carry forward additional volume cap provided under the 2008 
Housing Act that remains unused at the end of calendar year 2008.
    Respondents: State Local, and Tribal Governments.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 300 hours.
    Clearance Officer: R. Joseph Durbala, (202) 622-3634, Internal 
Revenue Service, Room 6516, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Shagufta Ahmed, (202) 395-7873, Office of Management 
and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.

Celina Elphage,
Treasury PRA Clearance Officer.
 [FR Doc. E9-6692 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SIERRA PACIFIC DEVELOPMENT FUND III MARCH 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             350
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,950
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,950
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,905
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (338,869)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,950
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,907
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,797
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,827)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,827)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Susan Richard Nelson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1260

___________ Larry Land, Sued as Larry D. Land, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the District * of Minnesota. Internal Revenue Service; Blaine * Holiday, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2003 Filed: August 12, 2003

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Larry Land appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his civil complaint and the denial of his motion to reconsider. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that dismissal was proper for the reasons explained by the district court, and-2- that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1998 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-22-1998

Patriot Party Alghny v. Alghny Cty Dept

Precedential or Non-Precedential:

Docket 96-3677,97-3359

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1998 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Patriot Party Alghny v. Alghny Cty Dept" (1998). 1998 Decisions. Paper 166.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_1998/166
Filed July 22, 1998 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Nos. 97-3359, 96-3677 

THE PATRIOT PARTY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY, 

Appellee 

v. 

ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF ELECTIONS; MARK WOLOSIK, 

Director of the Allegheny County 

Department of Elections, 

Appellants 

(Civil Action Nos. 93-cv-01884 and 95-cv-01175) 

Present: BECKER, Chief Judge, SLOVITER, STAPLETON, 

GREENBERG, SCIRICA, COWEN, NYGAARD, ALITO, 

ROTH, McKEE, and RENDELL, Circuit Judges. 

O R D E R 

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing 

en banc in the above appeal,* it is ORDERED that the Clerk 

of this Court list the above case for rehearing en banc at 

the convenience of the Court. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Edward R. Becker 

 CHIEF JUDGE 

DATED: July 22, 1998 

_________________________________________________________________ 

*Judge Mansmann and Judge Lewis have been unable to consider this 

Petition for Rehearing because of illness. 
A True Copy: 

Teste: 

Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Third Circuit
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
  a)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andb)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: November 9, 2010
    By:
    /s/ Ramón M. Ruiz-ComasRamón M. Ruiz-ComasPresident and
Chief Executive Officer
IV 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 237 

Recognizing the importance of stepped-up basis under section 1014 of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in preserving family-owned farms and 

small businesses. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2023 

Mr. MANN (for himself, Mr. COSTA, Mr. LATTA, Ms. CRAIG, Mr. SMITH of 

Nebraska, Mr. PANETTA, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. STEEL, Mr. KUSTOFF, Mr. CAREY, Mr. FEENSTRA, Mr. 

MURPHY, Mr. FERGUSON, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. MOORE of Utah, Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana, Mrs. MCCLAIN, Mr. CRAWFORD, Mr. WITTMAN, Mrs. 

MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. STEUBE, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Mr. 

MOORE of Alabama, Mr. MILLER of Ohio, Mr. LATURNER, Mr. 

NEWHOUSE, Mrs. MILLER of West Virginia, Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. ELLZEY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana, 

Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. FINSTAD, Mr. ALFORD, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mrs. 

FISCHBACH, Mr. RESCHENTHALER, Mr. GUEST, Mr. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mrs. 

HINSON, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. LAMALFA, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. DUARTE, 

Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, Mr. 

DUNCAN, Mrs. SPARTZ, Mr. MEUSER, Mrs. WAGNER, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. 

NUNN of Iowa, Mr. BACON, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. FRY, Mr. 

BAIRD, and Ms. JACKSON LEE) submitted the following resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the importance of stepped-up basis under section 

1014 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in preserving 

family-owned farms and small businesses. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HRES 237 IH 

Whereas the stepped-up basis under section 1014 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 allows recipients of inherited assets such as land, equipment, or buildings to adjust the cost basis of the asset to reflect its fair market 

value; 

Whereas 98 percent of farms are family owned according to 

the Department of Agriculture, and 19 percent of all 

businesses are family owned according to the Small Business Administration; 

Whereas a study conducted by the Economic Research Service of the Department of Agriculture determined that 66 

percent of all midsized farms would see an increased tax 

liability if the stepped-up basis were eliminated; 

Whereas the stepped-up basis is a crucial component of many 

family farms and small business succession plans; and 

Whereas the elimination of the stepped-up basis would threaten the ability of farmers, ranchers, agribusinesses, and 

small business owners to make generational transfers of 

their operations: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the preservation of the stepped-up 

3 basis; 

4 (2) opposes any efforts to impose new taxes on 

5 family farms or small businesses; and 

6 (3) recognizes the importance of generational 

7 transfers of farm and family-owned business oper8 ations. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
----

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3740 — Barclays Bank/Föreningssparbanken/JV)

(2005/C 156/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 June 2005, 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:

----
Richard E. PLATT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-0406

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 16, 2017]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.