alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID 86
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID 87
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID 88
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID 89
Case 4:05-cr-00040-Y Document 33 Filed 02/16/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID 90
Jarvis JILES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1849

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
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 Parks! America, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tristan R. Pico, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
1

No. 05-17-01386-CV

__________________________________________

In the Texas Court of Appeals

Fifth Judicial District at Dallas

__________________________________________

Guarav Mishra

Appellant,

v.

Shilpa Mishra,

Appellee.

________________________________________

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District

Court of Collin County, Texas

Cause No. 219-55658-2017

_________________________________________

UNOPPOSED SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLANT’S BRIEF

_________________________________________

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b) and 38.6(d),

Guarav Mishra files this Unopposed Motion for Extension

of Time to File Appellant’s Brief, and respectfully show

the Court the following:

1. The deadline to file Appellants’ Brief is

currently February 1, 2018.

2. For the following reason, Appellant requests a

30-day extension of time to file Appellant’s Brief,

making the new deadline March 1, 2018.

ACCEPTED

05-17-01386

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/31/2018 11:44 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/31/2018 11:44:23 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
2

3. This is the second request for an extension of

time by Appellant.

4. Appellant needs additional time to file his brief

because of unavoidable conflicts in other trial matters.

Appellant, Guarav Mishra, respectfully requests an

extension of thirty days from February 1, 2018, up to and

including Thursday, March 1, 2018, in which to file it’s

Appellant’s Brief.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Thomas S. Howery

Sanjay S. Mathur

Texas Bar Number 00794215

Thomas S. Howery

Texas Bar Number 24075399

Mathur Law Offices, P.C.

2989 N. Stemmons Freeway

Suite 1000

Dallas, Texas 75247

Telephone: (214) 378-8880

Facsimile: (214) 378-8890

Email:

service@mathurlawoffices.com

Counsels for Appellant 
3

Certificate of Conference

I certify that counsel for Appellant and Appellee

have conferred regarding this Motion for Extension of

Time and counsel for Appellee is unopposed to this

motion.

/s/ Thomas S. Howery

Thomas S. Howery

Certificate of Service

I certify that a true and correct copy of the

foregoing was served on the following this 31 day of

st

January, 2018, pursuant to the rules:

Kevin Davidson -via efile eservice

Gray Reed

1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600

Dallas, Texas 75201

Tel: 214-954-4135

Fax: 469-320-6906

Email: kdavidson@grayreed.com

Counsel for Appellee

/s/ Thomas S. Howery

Thomas S. Howery
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 Lakeside  Mortgage Fund, LLC
(the  "Company"),  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
I,  William F.  Webster,  President  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of  Lakeside
Financial  Group,  Inc.,  the Manager of 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 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Dated:   May 13, 2005                        /s/ William F. Webster
                                             ---------------------------
                                             William F. Webster,
                                             President of Manager
                                             Lakeside Financial Group, Inc.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Michael Joe Anderson, * From the 220th District Court

of Comanche County,

Trial Court No. CR03521-A

No. 11-21-00213-CR * November 12, 2021

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
# C_2018301EN.01000601.xml

| 27.8.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.8.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/6

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 5 July 2018 — Liam Jenkinson v European External Action Service, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Eulex Kosovo

(Case C-43/17 P) (1)

((Appeal - Arbitration clause - Staff of international missions of the European Union - Jurisdiction to rule on disputes concerning employment contracts - Consecutive fixed-term contracts - Arbitration clauses conferring jurisdiction, in the final contract, on the Courts of the European Union, and, in the previous contracts, on the Brussels (Belgium) courts - Decision not to renew the final contract - Claim that all the contractual relationships should be recategorised as a ‘contract of indefinite duration’ - Claims for compensation for unfair dismissal - Contractual relationships prior to the final contract to be taken into account - Jurisdiction of the General Court of the European Union))

(2018/C 301/07)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Liam Jenkinson (represented by: N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. Vitro and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented initially by: G. Gattinara, L. Radu Bouyon and S. Bartelt, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Gattinara, A. Aresu and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents), European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt, R. Spac and E. Orgován, acting as Agents), Eulex Kosovo (represented by: M. Vicente Hernandez, avocate, and subsequently by E. Raoult, avocate)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2016, Jenkinson v Council and Others (T-602/15, EU:T:2016:660); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 9 November 2016, Jenkinson v Council and Others (T-602/15, EU:T:2016:660);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 104, 3.4.2017.

---
Jack McDonald CALVERT v. STATE

CR-16-0836

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, James W. Rogers,certify that:

1.     I havereviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of VWR International, Inc.;

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)     Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)     Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

c)     Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.     Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)     Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
| /s/ JAMES W. ROGERS                           |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Name: James W.  Rogers                        |   |
| Title: *Chairman and Chief Executive Officer* |   |
| Date: August 12,  2005                   |   |

 

----
---

Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 on Form 20-F of Battle Mountain Gold Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended October 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I hereby 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 annual 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 annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: February 24, 2016 “Ian Brown”Ian Brown
    Chief Financial Officer


---
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT April 11, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1096 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00051 -CV -5 GEORGE ALL EN, SR., Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us BAPTIST VILLAGE, INC., De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the S outhe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (A pr il 11, 200 8) Be fo re T JO FL A T , A

N D E RS O N and H IL L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

The overwhelm ing evid ence in this summ ary j udgm ent record e stablish es that the plainti ff w as fire d from his pos ition because of the undispu ted evidence that he w as ta

ppi ng i nto the te le phon e lin es of the r es ide nts and c ondu ct ing ex te nsi ve pe rs ona l t el ep hone c al ls the re on, a ll in v iol at ionof e xpl ic it co m

pany pol ic ie s, and p ro bably

a lso in vio latio n of

the law . B ec au se thi s le git im at e busi ne ss re as on i s so c le ar ly

the sol e ca

use of pla int if f’ s te rm inatio n, w e can r ea dil y pr et er m it oth er iss ue s r el at ing to the dis cr im inatio n and r et al iatio n c la im s, i n c l u d i n g th e t i me l i n e s s o f th e E E O C c h ar g e an dth e e x i s t e n c e v e l n o no f ap r i ma faci e cas e. Pl ai nti ff a lso appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of sum m ar y j udgm en t re je ct i n g p l ai n t i ff

’s cl ai m s u n d erth e f

ed er al wi re t ap p i n g s t at u t e a n dGe o rg i a’s w ir et ap pin g st at

ute . B othc la im s a sse rt

that de fe ndant v iol at ed

the tw o st at

ute s by int er ce pti ng h is t el ep hone c al ls b y vid eo and a

udi o surv ei lla

nc e de vic es . W ith re spe ct to the se tw o c la im s, w e ne ed a ddr es s on ly

one iss ue that i s di spos iti ve of both c la im s. W e re ad ily

c onc lud e that pl ai nti ff

ha d no obj ec tiv e expe ct at ionof pr iva cy and n o ob

j ec tiv e expe ct at ionthat hi s c onve rs at ion s w oul d no t be intercepted. Plaintiff w as intention ally tapping into so m eone else’ s telephone lin e, an d c ondu ct ing e xte nsi ve pe rs ona l t el ep hone c al ls the re on, in vio latio n of e xpr es s co m pany pol ic ie s, and p ro bably

in vio latio n of

the law . A s am atte r of

c om m onMoreove r, the Ge org ia law c laim is forec losed by Elmore v. Atlanta Z ay

re, I nc., 1 341 S.E.2d 905 (Ga.Ct.App. 1986). 3 se nse , no r ea sona

ble pe rs on c oul d e xpe ct

any de gr ee of

pr iva cy dur ing co nv ers at io ns ha d upo n t el ep ho ne li ne s wh ic h p la in ti ff h adno rig htto be us in g. A ny r ea sona ble pe rs on w oul d e xpe ct that su chsur

re pti tio us and i m

pr ope r use m ight b e detected and m ight b e re corded for the purpose of elim inating such im proper use and exacting appropriate discipl ine. 1 A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 3969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00752]

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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts

Arts Advisory Panel Meetings

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 
notice is hereby given that 4 meetings of the Arts Advisory Panel to 
the National Council on the Arts will be held by teleconference or 
videoconference.

DATES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for individual meeting 
times and dates. All meetings are Eastern time and ending times are 
approximate:

ADDRESSES: National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 
7th St. SW, Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Further information with reference to 
these meetings can be obtained from David Travis, Office of Guidelines 
& Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 
20506; [email protected], or call 202-682-5001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The closed portions of meetings are for the 
purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on 
financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the 
Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in 
confidence to the agency. In accordance with the determination of the 
Chair of March 11, 2022, these sessions will be closed to the public 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 10.

The Upcoming Meetings Are

    NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships Panel A (review of applications): This 
meeting will be closed.
    Date and time: February 6, 2025; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    NEA Jazz Masters Fellowships Panel B (review of applications): This 
meeting will be closed.
    Date and time: February 6, 2025; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Arts Education Partnership Panel (review of applications): This 
meeting will be closed.
    Date and time: February 12, 2025; 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    International Activities Panel (review of applications): This 
meeting will be closed.
    Date and time: March 4, 2024; 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Dated: January 10, 2025.
David Travis,
Specialist, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2025-00752 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
```
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60734

In The Matter Of: BOBBIE J. MARTIN

Debtor

--------------------------------------------------------
COUNTRY CREDIT, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

BOBBIE J. MARTIN,

Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC 3:14

- CV

- 709

Before DAVIS, JONES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *
Country Credit, L.L.C. appeals the district court’s order affirming the
bankruptcy court’s decision that debt arising from a payday loan made to

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED June 8, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60734 Document: 00513538868 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2016No. 15

- 60734

2 Bobbie J. Martin was dischargeable. On appeal, w e have re viewed the record,
studied the briefs, and heard oral argument by both parties. We have
concluded, in the light of our precedents, that the bankruptcy court did not err

when it determined that Bobbie J. Martin’s debt

, acquired through a payday
loan from Country Credit, L.L.C.

, is dischargeable

. Accordingly , the order of

the district court is affirmed

. AFFIRMED. Case: 15-60734 Document: 00513538868 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCK DIVISION

MELISSA A. STARR, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.

) 5:03-CV-222-C

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) ECF

Commissioner of Social Security, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

Plaintiff is appealing an adverse decision of the Defendant, Jo Anne B. Barnhart,

Commissioner of Social Security, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The United States Magistrate

Judge filed her Report and Recommendation on September 7, 2006. No written objections have

been filed. It is, therefore,

ORDERED that the findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation are hereby

ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court and that the above-styled and -numbered

cause is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated October 19, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 5:03-cv-00222-C-BG Document 22 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 100
S.H. and C.H. v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160974

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

September 6, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-40069

Conference Calendar

 

TERRY D. SMITH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAMES BRADSHAW, Proprietor, 

Bradshaw State Jail; J.C. Conner,

Warden, Bradshaw State Jail; 

BRADSHAW STATE JAIL,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-663

- - - - - - - - - -

June 26, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Terry D. Smith, Texas prisoner #713234, appeals from the

magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Smith argues that the

magistrate judge abused her discretion in dismissing his § 1983

action as appellees allowed an argument to escalate and did not
No. 96-40069

- 2 -

stop an attack on Smith by other inmates. Because Smith did not

allege that the appellees were aware of a known threat or a

substantial risk of serious harm, the magistrate judge did not

abuse her discretion in dismissing Smith’s failure-to-protect

claim as frivolous under § 1915(d). Farmer v. Brennan, 114 S.

Ct. 1970, 1976 (1994); Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 792

(5th Cir. 1986).

Smith also argues that appellees were deliberately

indifferent to his serious medical needs as they failed to

provide adequate medical care after the inmate attack. Because

Smith’s allegations amount to no more than negligence or medical

malpractice, the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in

dismissing Smith’s lack-of-adequate-medical-care claim as

frivolous under § 1915(d). See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320,

321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Smith’s appeal is without factual or legal basis and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, his appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. 5th

Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Smith that any additional frivolous

appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition

of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Smith is further cautioned to

review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise

arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously

decided by this court. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.