alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 10, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00007

- CV

JIM LAKE, INC. A/K/A JIM LAKE COMPANY , Appellant

V.

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 15852

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Stating they have reac hed a settlement of all claims asserted in this matter, the

parties have filed an agreed motion to dismiss. We grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

230007f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/ /

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE– 2

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JIM LAKE, INC. A/K/A JIM LAKE COMPANY, Appellant

No. 05

- 23

- 00007

- CV V.

STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 21

- 15852. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell,

Justices Goldstein and Breedlove participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellee Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Jim Lake, Inc. a/ k/a Jim Lake Company.

Judgment entered this 10 th day of July 2023.
William L. NORWOOD, M.D. and Jennifer B. Norwood, Husband and Wife, and Norwood Minerals, LLC v. MOBLEY VALVE SERVICES, INC., D. Mark Mobley and Kimberly B. Mobley.

No. 2014-C-1882.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 16, 2015. Rehearing Denied March 6, 2015.

PER CURIAM.

The writ is granted in part. The court of appeal specifically held that plaintiffs did not prove sufficient grounds to pierce the corporate veil. The judgment is therefore corrected to cast the defendant, Mobley Valve Services, Inc., only, in judgment. In all other respects, the writ is denied.

**WRIT GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.**
Exhibit 23.1








CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We have issued our report dated March30, 2011 with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules included in the Annual Report of Resource Real Estate Opportunity REIT, Inc. and subsidiary on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Post-effective Amendment No. 2 to the Registration Statement and Prospectus of Resource Real Estate Opportunity REIT, Inc. on Form S-11 (File No. 333-160463).





/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP





Philadelphia, Pennsylvania





March 30, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


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


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Daugherty Resources, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the period ended September 30,
2003, as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), the
undersigned, Michael P. Windisch, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted under Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act; and

      2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the date and for the periods reported therein.

/s/ Michael P. Windisch

Michael P. Windisch
Chief Financial Officer
November 10, 2003


                                       1
Jeff McGee BRAGG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2862

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE 

COMMISSION

v.

ASHER NEWTON WEINBERG

*

*

*

*

*

*

 IN THE

 SUPREME COURT 

 OF MARYLAND

 AG Docket No.1

 September Term, 2022

O R D E R

After he was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law, Asher N. Weinberg 

filed his first motion to modify his suspension. That motion was denied. Mr. Weinberg then 

filed a second motion to modify his suspension. Upon consideration of Mr. Weinberg’s 

second motion to modify his suspension, it is this 21st day of February 2024, by the 

Supreme Court of Maryland, a majority of the Court concurring,

ORDERED that the second motion for modification of suspension is granted in part; 

and it is further

ORDERED that, pursuant to Rules 19-740(c)(2)(B) and 19-741(h), and accounting 

from the date of this Order, Mr. Weinberg’s suspension from the practice of law is stayed 

in favor of six months’ probation subject to the condition that he comply with the Maryland 

Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

 /s/ Matthew J. Fader 

 Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 1454]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Sixty Eighth RTCA SC-186 Plenary Session

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Sixty Eighth RTCA SC-186 Plenary Session.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of Sixty Eighth RTCA SC-186 Plenary Session.

DATES: The meeting will be held March 23, 2018 9:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th 
Street NW, Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Secen at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f8998b9d9b9d96b88a8c9b99d6978a9f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d7c6e787e78735d6f697e7c33726f7a">[email protected]</span></a> or 202-
330-0647, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW, Suite 910, 
Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 
833-9434, or website at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is 
hereby given for a meeting of the Sixty Eighth RTCA SC-186 Plenary 
Session. The agenda will include the following:
1. Welcome/Chairman's Introductory Remarks/Introductions
2. Review of Meeting Agenda
3. Review/Approval of the Sixty-Seventh Meeting Summary
4. FAA Surveillance & Broadcast Services (SBS) Program--Status
5. WG-3--Extended Squitter MOPS/SC-209 ATC XPDR MOPS--Status
6. WG-4--Advanced Interval Management (A-IM)--Stauts
7. Other Business
    A. Aireon Activities Update
    B. Terms of Reference Considerations
    C. Date, Place, and Time of Next Meeting
8. New Business
9. Review Action Items
10. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 5, 2018.
John Raper,
Manager, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17 (Acting), NextGen, 
Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-00300 Filed 1-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Jeffery T. CRYSTAL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-0369

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 09
- 00021
- CR
DAVID DUANE DUNIGAN , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 40th District Court Ellis County, Texas Trial Court No. 32765CR

O P I N I O N
David Duane Dunigan filed his notice of appe al ninety

- eight days after the court imposed sentence. 1 Therefore, even though Dunigan timely filed a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal is untimely. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.2(a)(2). Because Dunigan’s notice of appeal is untimely and because he h as not shown grounds for continuing the appeal, we will dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 The trial court imposed sentence on September 11, 2008. Dunigan filed his notice of appeal on December 18, 2008.Dunigan v. State Page 2

The Clerk of this Court notified Dunigan that the appeal may be dismissed for
want of jurisdic tion if he did not file a response showing grounds for conti nuing the appeal

. Id. 44.3. Dunigan responded by filing a motion asking this Court to maintain the appeal on the C ourt’s docket or , in the alternative, to grant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal

. We address the latter request first.
A ny extension motion must be filed within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. Id. 26.3. Because Dunigan ’s motion was filed more than two months after the notice of appeal was due, the motion is denied insofar as it seeks an

exte nsion of time to file the notice of appeal

. See Thompson v. State , No. 02

- 05

- 00367

- CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9211, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Nov. 3, 20 05, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 96) (interpret ing former Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b)(2)). Dunigan also cites Rule 44.3 and asks the Court to maintain the appeal on the docket because he has a meritorious ground for appeal and because counsel inadvertently miscalculated the deadline for the noti ce of appeal. Rule 44.3 provides,

“ A court of appeals must not affirm or reverse a judgment or dismiss an appeal for formal defects or irregularities in appellate procedure without allowing a reasonable time to correct or amend the defects or irregulariti es. ” Id. 44.3. However, Rule 44.3 may not be used to enlarge the deadline for perfecting an appeal in a criminal case. See
Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 523 (interpreting former Rule of Appellate Procedure 83)

. Both Dunigan ’s notice of appeal and his motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal are untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want ofDunigan v. State Page 3

jurisdiction. See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 52 2

- 2 3; Thompson , 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9211, at

* 2

- 3

.

FELIPE REYNA Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Reyna, and Justice Davis Appeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed March 25, 2009 Publish [CR25]
B.S., Father of M.A.S., Minor Child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4119

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 31, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 14591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7139]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,133]


Ogden Manufacturing, Inc., Edinboro Plant, a Subsidiary of 
Chromalox, Inc.; Edinboro, PA; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on February 5, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Ogden 
Manufacturing, Inc., Edinboro Plant, a subsidiary of Chromalox, Inc., 
Edinboro, Pennsylvania.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 16th day of March 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-7139 Filed 3-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QNB Corp. (the
"Corporation") for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas J. Bisko, President and CEO,
of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as added by ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this periodic report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
issuer.


Date:           May 6, 2005                            By: /s/  Thomas J. Bisko
      -------------------------------                      ---------------------
                                                           Thomas J. Bisko
                                                           President and CEO

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provide to QNB Corp. and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Tri-Force Consulting Services, Inc. 

Under Contract No. N62473-12-C-4809 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 60844, 60982 

Victor G. Klingelhofer, Esq. 

Daniel J. Strouse, Esq. 

Cohen Mohr, LLP 

Washington, DC 

Ronald J. Borro, Esq. 

Navy Chief Trial Attorney 

Rachel J. Goldstein, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The parties have advised that the disputes have been settled, and moved for 

dismissal. These appeals are dismissed with prejudice, subject to reinstatement by 

20 November 2017 if the settlement is not consummated. 

Dated: 2 August 2017 

Administrative Judge 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 60844, 60982, Appeals of 

Tri-Force Consulting Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board's 

Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREYD. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
EX PARTE Charles Eugene RUTLEDGE and Sharon Lee Rutledge

1150982 (2141062)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

November 10, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
D.W., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LAWRENCE RAY MALONDA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-71202

Agency No. A078-442-403

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012 ** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Lawrence Ray Malonda, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for withholding of

removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

FILED

JUN 29 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-71202

evidence, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny

the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Malonda did not

experience harms in Indonesia that rise to the level of past persecution. See Halim

v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s determination that, even under a disfavored group analysis,

Malonda did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to establish a clear

probability of persecution, see Hoxha v. Ashcroft, 319 F.3d 1179, 1185 (9th Cir.

2003); Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1066 (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will

need to adduce a considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence”),

and did not demonstrate there is a pattern or practice of persecution against

Chinese Christians in Indonesia, see Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1060-62. Accordingly,

Malonda’s withholding of removal claim fails.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
**Exhibit32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theannual report of U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Albert E. Bergeron, Vice President—ChiefFinancial Officer of US Shipping General Partner LLC, the general partner ofthe Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(i) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/ Albert E. Bergeron                       |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Albert E. Bergeron                           |
|   | Vice President—Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | March 15, 2006                               |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to U.S. ShippingPartners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
# APPENDIX “ B4 ”

User Manual: MikroKopter Joker 800
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 2247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00514]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-002, OMB Control No. 3235-0071]


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 
20549-2736.

Extension:
    Regulation S-K.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange 
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation S-K (17 CFR 229.101--et seq.) specifies the non-
financial disclosure requirements applicable to registration statements 
under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.); and 
registration statements, periodic reports, going-private transaction 
and tender offer statements, proxy and information statements, and any 
other documents required to be filed under Sections 12, 13, 14, and 15 
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78l, 78m, 78n, 
78o(d)). Regulation S-K is assigned one burden hour for administrative 
convenience.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will 
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief 
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi 
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email 
to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#acfcfeedf3e1cdc5c0cec3d4ecdfc9cf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dd8d8f9c8290bcb4b1bfb2a59daeb8bef3bab2ab">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 9, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-00514 Filed 1-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>