alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
MINUTES 

Court of Appeals 

Fourth Court of Appeals District 

San Antonio, Texas 

July 21, 2017 

No. 04-17-00436-CR & 04-17-00437-CR 

David Stuart BISHOP, 

Appellant 

v. 

The STATE of Texas, 

Appellee 

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2015CR3325 & 2015CR3326 

Laura Lee Parker, Judge Presiding  

O R D E R   

We grant the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal in appeal number 

04-17-00436-CR.  We grant the motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal in 

appeal number 04-17-00437-CR.  We order appeal numbers 04-17-00436-CR and 04-17-

00437–CR retained on the docket of this court and we reinstate the appellate deadlines.  

In the interest of the efficient administration of the court’s docket, we order appeal 

numbers 04-17-00436-CR and 04-17-00437–CR consolidated.  The parties must file motions, 

briefs, and other pleadings as if the appeals were one but put both appeal numbers in the style of 

the case.  The cases must be argued together in one brief, as in a single appeal, and if oral 

argument is requested and granted, the entire case must be argued as a single appeal, with the 

total time limit for each party equal to the ordinary time limit for a party in a single appeal. 

However, a record must be filed in each appeal, the record in each case will remain 

separate and, if supplementation of the record becomes necessary, the supplemental material 

must be filed in the appeal to which it applies. The court will dispose of both appeals in the same 

judgment, opinion, and mandate.  

/s/Luz Elena D. Chapa 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2017. 

/s/Luz Estrada 

Luz Estrada 

Chief Deputy Clerk 

 Entered this 21st day of July 2017
Exhibit 32.2
 HORIZON LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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/ MICHAEL T. AVARAMichael T. AvaraSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
Case 3:05-cv-00629-B Document 5 Filed 05/31/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14
Oscar SYGER, Appellant, v. Moises KRIGER, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0450

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 13, 2019

Arthur J. Morburger, Miami, for appellant.

Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, P.L., Jason R. Marks, Miami and Ashley P. Frankel, for appellee.

Before SALTER, and MILLER, JJ., and LEBAN, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

*137Affirmed. *See**Valdes v. GAB Robins N. Am., Inc.*, 924 So.2d 862, 866 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) ("It is axiomatic that a plaintiff in a malicious prosecution case must, as an essential element of that cause of action, establish that the prior litigation giving rise to the malicious prosecution suit ended with a 'bona fide termination' in that party's favor.") (quoting *Doss v. Bank of Am., N.A.*, 857 So.2d 991, 994 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ); *see also**Union Oil of Cal., Amsco Div. v. Watson*, 468 So.2d 349, 353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) ("Where dismissal is on technical grounds, for procedural reasons, or any other reason not inconsistent with the guilt of the accused, it does not constitute a favorable termination.").
Lumberfious Deandre ARNOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-911

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cynthia Richards, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

NORTHCUTT, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 2

FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 4

My favorite simple approach: And-But-Therefore

See Randy Olson's fascinating book on science communication Houston, We Have a Narrative.

_____________ and _______________

but _______________

therefore _________________.

Situation —> Complication —> Resolution

Example: Philip Bump, Washington Post

—

FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 6

"Harvey unloaded 33 trillion gallons of water in the U.S."

Good, but . . . 

Can this be more human-scaled?

—

"If we averaged this amount of water spread 

equally over the lower 48 states, that’s the 

equivalent of about 0.17 inches of rain — 

roughly the height of three pennies stacked 

atop each other — occupying every square 

inch of the contiguous United States."
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 7

A bit better, but maybe . . . 

—

If you piled up 20 trillion gallons of water over the District of Columbia (approximately 68 

square miles), the height of the water would be 1,410 feet — or almost the height of the 

Empire State Building. (Ryan Maue)

Over Harris County alone — which is home to Houston — 1 trillion gallons of water fell in 

the four days from Saturday through Tuesday. That’s as much water as flows over Niagara 

Falls in 15 days. (Jeff Lindner)

The amount of rain that fell in Texas and Louisiana would have ended the historic California 

drought, twice over. (Paul Deanno)

FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 9

Further well-balanced uncertainty later

The point?

We need uncertainty to keep things in perspective. Just don't let it get out of hand, and make sure 

to leave a finishing taste of what we do know.

FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 11

—
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 12 Compare with

"One load in the dryer has the same carbon footprint as leaving an LED light on for 300 hours."

Example: Pew Research Center
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 13

—
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 14

The point?

Prior*Data = Posterior

Context + New Evidence = Updated Knowledge

Expectation + Surprise = Learning
FCSM 2021 Regina Nuzzo 15

Recap of my four weird tricks

1. Introduce tension

2. Scale numbers to humans

3. Season with uncertainty 

4. Make it stick by using expectation and surprise

Thank you! 

Regina@AmStat.org

@ReginaNuzzo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN NYGREN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLIED MICRO CIRCUITS 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-07400-VC 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

EXTEND FILING DEADLINE

Re: Dkt. No. 35

Nygren's motion is granted. Nygren's brief in support of the fee and expense petition will 

be due June 12, 2017. The defendants' response will be due July 3, 2017. Nygren's optional 

reply brief will be due July 10, 2017. A hearing will be held July 20, 2017. No further 

continuances will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2017

______________________________________

VINCE CHHABRIA

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-07400-VC Document 36 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Form of Amended and Restated  Change in Control Agreement
 Agreement Holding Company Bank Employers Executive Original Agreement
 1. Purpose.
 2. Change in Control.




---



##### 



3. Terminating Event.
        2




---



##### 



4. Severance Payment. [one or two]
 5. Benefit Continuation. [one or two]
 6. Limitation on Benefits.
   3




---



##### 



7. Section 409A
 8. Employment Status.
 9. Term.
 10. Withholding.
 11. Arbitration of Disputes.
 12. Assignment; Successors and Assigns, etc.
  4




---



##### 



13. Enforceability.
 14. Waiver.
 15. Notices.
 16. Election of Remedies.
 17. Amendment.
 5




---



##### 



18. Governing Law.
 19. Interpretation.
 20. Counterparts and Facsimile Signatures.
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Attest:
    
    Benjamin Franklin Bancorp, Inc.By:Title:Witness
    
    Executive[Name]The undersigned hereby unconditionally
guarantees the obligations of the
Holding Company under the foregoing Agreement.Benjamin Franklin BankBy:Title:
 6
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS LISTED ON PAGES 18-19 OF THIS FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001039785
<NAME> CONTINENTAL GLOBAL GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          26,351
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   44,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                       797
<INVENTORY>                                     32,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               105,298
<PP&E>                                          23,815
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,757
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,037
<BONDS>                                        120,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                    (37,507)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,757
<SALES>                                        252,072
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,072
<CGS>                                          209,363
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,363
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,658
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,302
<INCOME-TAX>                                       127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,175
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,175
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 6
                                                                       ---------



          CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY RULE 13A-14(B) AND SECTION 1350 OF
                CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


In connection with the report of Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. (the "Company") on
the Form 40-F for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of 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 results of operations of the
      Company.



DATED this 18th day of May, 2004.



/s/ John W. Weaver
------------------------------
John W. Weaver
President and Chief Executive Officer,
Abitibi-Consolidated Inc.
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 Genesis Electronics Group,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Edward C. Dillon, Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Edward C. Dillon
-----------------------------
Edward C. Dillon
Chief Executive Officer

April 6, 2011


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 Genesis Electronics Group,
Inc.(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Nelson Stark, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
           (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company.

/s/Nelson Stark
-----------------------------
Nelson Stark
Chief Financial Officer

April 6, 2011
James Wilson HALL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3802

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 4, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Jose Ramon LOPEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-2679

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 18, 2019

Jose Ramon Lopez, Crawfordville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*927Jose Ramon Lopez appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm in all respects except as to ground two. We reverse the summary denial of ground two and remand for an evidentiary hearing as the claim was facially sufficient and the record does not conclusively refute it. *See**Freeman v. State*, 761 So.2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing *Maharaj v. State*, 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ).

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WALLIS, GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur.
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 121 

To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BIGGS of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 

Committee on House Administration, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To prohibit agencies from issuing vaccine passports, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Vaccine Passports 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AGENCIES ISSUING VACCINE 

7 PASSPORTS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—An agency may not issue a vac9 cine passport, vaccine pass, or other standardized docuVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:20 Jan 29, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H121.IH H121

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 121 IH

1 mentation for the purpose of certifying the COVID–19 

2 vaccination status of a citizen of the United States to a 

3 third party, or otherwise publish or share any COVID– 

4 19 vaccination record of a citizen of the United States, 

5 or similar health information. 

6 (b) AGENCY DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

7 ‘‘agency’’ has the meaning given that term in section 551 

8 of title 5, United States Code. 

9 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING PROOF OF COVID–19 

10 VACCINATION FOR FEDERAL ACCESS. 

11 Proof of COVID–19 vaccination shall not be deemed 

12 a requirement for access to Federal property or Federal 

13 services, or for access to congressional grounds or services. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Mario D. POWERS, DOC #X56990, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-4684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 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


Robert E. Balletto, President and Chief Executive Officer and Joseph W. Kennedy,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of Georgetown  Bancorp,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  each certify in their capacity as officers of the Company that
they have  reviewed  the  quarterly  report of the  Company on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2009 and that to the best of their knowledge:

1.    the report fully complies with the  requirements  of Sections 13(a) 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 purpose of this  statement  is solely to comply  with Title 18,  Chapter 63,
Section  1350 of the United  States  Code,  as  amended  by  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Georgetown Bancorp, Inc. and will be retained by Georgetown Bancorp,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon
request.


November 12, 2009                   /s/ Robert E. Balletto
-----------------------------       --------------------------------------------
Date                                Robert E. Balletto
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer


November 12, 2009                   /s/ Joseph W. Kennedy
-----------------------------       -------------------------------------------
Date                                Joseph W. Kennedy
                                    Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
                                    Officer and Treasurer


                                       22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE:

FURNITURE 4 LESS, INC.,

 Debtor.

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

JOHN H. LITZLER, TRUSTEE,

Appellant,

VS.

D.M. REID ASSOCIATES,

LTD./SOUTH,

Appellee.

)

) BANKRUPTCY CASE NO.

)

) 03-80924-HDH-7

)

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1005-G

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of the appellant John H. Litzler, Trustee

(“Litzler”) for reconsideration of this court’s order dismissing his appeal from the

memorandum opinion on motion of various defendants for summary judgment

(“memorandum opinion”). The jurisdiction of this court over an appeal from a

bankruptcy court’s order is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). The statute provides that

district courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals: 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01005-G Document 6 Filed 07/13/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID 20
- 2 -

(1) from final judgments, orders, and decrees;

(2) from interlocutory orders and decrees issued under

section 1121(d) of title 11 increasing or reducing the time

periods referred to in section 1121 of such title;

(3) with leave of the court, from other interlocutory orders

and decrees; 

and, with leave of the court, from interlocutory orders and

decrees, of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and

proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under

section 157 of . . . title [28]. 

28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Thus, the statutory authority for jurisdiction “makes finality a

prerequisite to appealability as a matter of right to a district court from a bankruptcy

court order.” Matter of Moody, 825 F.2d 81, 84-85 (5th Cir. 1987). 

In his motion, Litzler argues that this court’s order and judgment were issued

in error because the memorandum opinion was not a final order. See Motion for

Reconsideration of Judgment Dismissing Appeal for Want of Jurisdiction (“Motion

for Reconsideration”) at 1. In particular, Litzler claims that the memorandum

opinion did not become final and appealable until May 6, 2005, when the

bankruptcy court entered its amended findings of fact and conclusions of law and

related order on motions to alter and amend (“amended findings of fact”). Id. at 2. 

Nevertheless, it is clear that the bankruptcy court never issued a final order in this

case. See Bankruptcy Court Docket Sheet. As a result, Litzler’s appeal is

interlocutory and leave of the district court is required to bring an interlocutory

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01005-G Document 6 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID 21
- 3 -

appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Since Litzler has not received leave of court to bring

this interlocutory appeal, the court declines to exercise jurisdiction. Accordingly,

Litzler’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

July 13, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01005-G Document 6 Filed 07/13/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID 22
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 23-0253

_________________

ADAM PUMMILL, an individual, and ADAM 

PUMMILL and KURTIS ROBERTSON as a 

member of Black Gold Enterprises, LLC, members 

of, and on behalf of BLACK GOLD 

ENTERPRISES, LLC,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v.

JOSHUA T. PATTERSON a/k/a JOSH 

PATTERSON, as an individual and d/b/a 

PATTERSON ENTERPRISES, INC.,

also d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT, 

INC., p/k/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN JCB, INC., 

also d/b/a ROCKY MOUNTAIN RENTAL 

SPECIALISTS, LLC, also d/b/a ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT also d/b/a ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN RENTAL, also d/b/a ROCKY 

MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT OF MISSOULA 

MONTANA,

 Defendants and Appellants.

O R D E R

_________________

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for 

submission on briefs to a five-justice panel of this Court. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the 

Honorable John W Larson, District Judge.

For the Court,

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

February 21 2024

02/21/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0253