alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Zep Inc. (the Corporation) for the year ended August 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certifies 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 Corporation.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|                                                
|/s/ John K. Morgan                              
|John K. Morgan                                  
|Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer
|November 29, 2007                               

[A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Zep Inc. and will
be retained by Zep Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.]
Kristin M. PROUD, Acting Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, et al., petitioners, v. Boris SHAKHNES, et al.

No. 12-859.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Jewel Denise HILL, petitioner, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.

No. 12-7843.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 87 (Friday, May 5, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 22433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11080]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to OMB for 
Review.

April 26, 1995.
    The Department of the Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Public Law 96-511. 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 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
    Special Request: In order to conduct the customer satisfaction 
survey described below during May and June 1995, the Department of 
Treasury is requesting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
approval of this information collection by May 9, 1995. To obtain a 
copy of this survey, please write to the IRS Clearance Officer at the 
address listed below.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

OMB Number: 1545-1349
Project Number: SOI-010
Type of Review: Revision
Title: 1995 TeleForm Script Usability Testing
Description: The purpose of the TeleForm usability assessment testing 
is to gather preliminary information from taxpayers about the 
comprehensibility and organization of the TeleForm scripts. We also 
want to obtain reactions and opinions of respondents using the 
application. This testing will allow the IRS to improve the TeleForm 
application as well as make it easier for taxpayers to use.
Respondents: Individuals or households
Estimated Number of Respondents: 45
Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1 hour
Frequency of Response: Other
Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 45 hours
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 
20224.
OMB Reviewer: Milo Sunderhauf (202) 395-7340, Office of Management and 
Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-11080 Filed 5-4-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
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

STEVAN E. PELIKAN; DEBORAH A.

PELIKAN,

 Petitioners - Appellants,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 08-70482

CIR No. 7607-06

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted May 24, 2011** 

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Stevan E. and Deborah A. Pelikan appeal pro se from the Tax Court’s

decision after a trial upholding the denial of innocent spouse relief to Stevan under

26 U.S.C. § 6015(b) and (f) from joint liability for tax deficiencies in 1999. We

FILED

JUN 07 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70482

have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We review for clear error the Tax

Court’s finding that Stevan is not entitled to innocent spouse relief under

§ 6015(b). Wiksell v. Comm’r, 90 F.3d 1459, 1461 (9th Cir. 1996). We review de

novo the Tax Court’s decision whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

abused his discretion in denying equitable relief under § 6015(f). Fargo v.

Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Washington, 157 F.3d

630, 642 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The Tax Court did not clearly err by finding that Stevan was not entitled to

innocent spouse relief under § 6015(b) because there was evidence showing that

the understatement of tax was not solely attributable to Deborah, that Stevan knew

or had reason to know of the understatement, and that it would not be inequitable

to hold Stevan liable for the deficiency. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015(b); Ordlock v.

Comm’r, 533 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2008) (requirements to qualify for innocent

spouse relief under § 6015(b)). Contrary to the Pelikans’ contention, the standard

set forth in Culver v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 189 (2001), is inapplicable, because

Culver concerns § 6015(c), and Stevan stipulated that he was not entitled to relief

under that section.

The Tax Court properly concluded that the Commissioner did not abuse his

discretion by denying Stevan equitable relief under § 6015(f). See 26 U.S.C.
3 08-70482

§ 6015(f); Rev. Proc. 2003-61 § 4.03(2) (nonexclusive list of factors for

determining whether to grant equitable relief under § 6015(f)).

We do not consider whether the Tax Court erred by sustaining the

negligence penalty imposed under 26 U.S.C. § 6662 because the issue was not

raised in the opening brief. See Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520

F.3d 1024, 1033 (9th Cir. 2008) (deeming waived issues not raised in the opening

brief).

The Pelikans’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
Luis CASTANON, petitioner, v. Victor S. JOHNSON, III.

No. 12-9294.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H.R. 1499

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO

SENATE AMENDMENT

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

May 9, 2006.

Resolved, That the House agree to the amendment of the 

Senate to the bill (H.R. 1499) entitled ‘‘An Act to amend the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow members of the 

Armed Forces serving in a combat zone to make contributions to their individual retirement plans even if the compensation on which such contribution is based is excluded 

from gross income, and for other purposes’’, with the following

HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT:

At the end of the Senate amendment add the following: 

On page 3, after line 3 of the House engrossed bill, 

insert the following:

1 (c) CONTRIBUTIONS FOR TAXABLE YEARS ENDING BE2 FORE ENACTMENT.—

3 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the case of any taxpayer 

4 with respect to whom compensation was excluded 

5 from gross income under section 112 of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 for any taxable year beginning 

7 after December 31, 2003, and ending before the date 

8 of the enactment of this Act, any contribution to an 
2

•HR 1499 EAH 

1 individual retirement plan made on account of such 

2 taxable year and not later than the last day of the 3-

3 year period beginning on the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act shall be treated, for purposes of such Code, 

5 as having been made on the last day of such taxable 

6 year. 

7 (2) WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS.—

8 (A) CREDIT OR REFUND.—If the credit or 

9 refund of any overpayment of tax resulting from 

10 a contribution to which paragraph (1) applies is 

11 prevented at any time by the operation of any 

12 law or rule of law (including res judicata), such 

13 credit or refund may nevertheless be allowed or 

14 made if the claim therefor is filed before the close 

15 of the 1-year period beginning on the date that 

16 such contribution is made (determined without 

17 regard to paragraph (1)). 

18 (B) ASSESSMENT OF DEFICIENCY.—The pe19 riod for assessing a deficiency attributable to a 

20 contribution to which paragraph (1) applies 

21 shall not expire before the close of the 3-year pe22 riod beginning on the date that such contribution 

23 is made. Such deficiency may be assessed before 

24 the expiration of such 3-year period notwith25 standing the provisions of any other law or rule 
3

•HR 1499 EAH 

1 of law which would otherwise prevent such as2 sessment. 

3 (3) INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT PLAN DEFINED.—

4 For purposes of this subsection, the term ‘‘individual 

5 retirement plan’’ has the meaning given such term by 

6 section 7701(a)(37) of such Code. 

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS IGLESIAS, individually

and on behalf of all others similarly

situated.

Plaintiff,

V.

FERRARA CANDY CO., and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00849-VC

CLASS ACTION

OBJECTION OF PATRICK S. SWEENEY PRO SE TO THE PROPOSED

SETTLEMENT AND NOTICE OF INTENT NOT TO APPEAR

NOW COMES, Pro Se Objector, Patrick S. Sweeney and hereby files these

objections to the proposed settlement in this matter.

I. PROOF OF MEMBERSHIP IN CLASS

Upon information and belief Patrick S. Sweeney, Pro Se ("Objector")

believes he is a member ofthe class as defined in that certain Legal Notice ofClass

Action Settlement dated June 21, 2018 (the "Notice"). Objector's address and

telephone number are listed at the conclusion ofthis objection.

Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 88 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 88 Filed 09/24/18 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 88 Filed 09/24/18 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:17-cv-00849-VC Document 88 Filed 09/24/18 Page 4 of 5
7-cv-00849-VC Document 88 Filed 09/24/18 Pa
Shanard LESURE, petitioner, v. Michael P. ATCHISON, Warden.

No. 12-9839.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Kenneth M. ROWLS, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 12-7960.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
United States District C

ourt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYMO LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 17-00939 WHA

ORDER RE SUR-REPLY TO

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

COMPEL ARBITRATION 

By APRIL 24 AT 11:00 P.M., plaintiff Waymo LLC may file a sur-reply up to FIVE PAGES

in length (with no attachments or declarations) to defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The

sur-reply must be limited strictly to addressing new points raised for the first time in defendants’

reply (Dkt. No. 243).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2017. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:17-cv-00939-WHA Document 255 Filed 04/22/17 Page 1 of 1
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-146804, Form S-3 No. 333-155235 and Form S-3 No. 333-170333) of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our reports datedFebruary 24, 2011, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., included in thisAnnual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia 

February 24,2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

ANDREW ZENTZ, )

)

 Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) CIVIL NO. 1:13cv139

)

ADVANCED ASSEMBLY, LLC, )

)

 Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, filed by the

plaintiff, Andrew Zentz (“Zentz”), on October 28, 2013. On November 13, 2013, the defendant,

Advanced Assembly, LLC, (“Advanced Assembly”), filed a response indicating that it does not

object to Zentz’s motion.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a

court order by filing: (I) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a

motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have

appeared.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A). In the present case, Advanced Assembly has answered the

complaint, thus requiring stipulation of the parties prior to dismissal. Advanced Assembly states

that its response to the motion should be deemed its stipulation to the dismissal.

Accordingly, as the parties have stipulated to dismissal without prejudice, Zentz’s motion

will be granted and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 

 Entered: January 13, 2014.

 s/ William C. Lee 

 William C. Lee, Judge

 United States District Court
EXHIBIT A

case 4:13-cv-00027-JD-JEM document 18-1 filed 08/16/13 page 1 of 2
case 4:13-cv-00027-JD-JEM document 18-1 filed 08/16/13 page 2 of 2
Deloris PHILLIPS, petitioner, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE.

No. 12-8026.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
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 Annual Report of NRDC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
A. Baker, 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 results of operation of the Company.




Date:
      March 13, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      RICHARD A. BAKERRichard
      A. BakerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)





The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case No. 17-cv-00826 NC

ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 

DISMISSAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NGOC LAM CHE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

E.P. & G., Properties, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00826 NC

ORDER OF CONDITIONAL 

DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. 30

The Court having been notified of the settlement of this action, and it appearing that

no issue remains for the Court’s determination,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT this action and all claims asserted herein are

DISMISSED with prejudice. In the event that the settlement is not reached, any party may

move to reopen the case, provided that such motion is filed within 60 days. All scheduled 

dates are VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 5, 2018 _________________________ Nathanael M. Cousins

United States Magistrate Judge
|   | (1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By:    | /s/ Terrance M. McCarthy                      |   |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |   Terrance M. McCarthy                        |   |
|   |   |    President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |   |   (Principal Executive Officer)               |   |

----
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 Thunder Mountain Gold Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin S. McRae, Secretary/Treasurer, Director and Chief Financial Accounting 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 results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Robin S. McRae By ____________________________________ Robin S.  McRae Secretary/Treasurer and Director and Chief Financial Accounting Officer Date:  August 18, 2006
Matthew ASTORGA, petitioner, v. KANSAS.

No. 12-7568.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

On petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* and petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the Supreme Court of Kansas for further consideration in light of *Alleyne v. United States,* --- U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2151, --- L.Ed. ---- (2013).
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 82 (Friday, April 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 20975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10425]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Science Board Task Force on Combat Identification; Change 
in Date of Advisory Committee Meeting

Summary: The meeting of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Combat 
Identification scheduled for June 13-14, 1995 as published in the 
Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 54, Page 14932, Tuesday, March 21, 1995, 
FR Doc. 95-6956) will be held on June 14-15, 1995. In all other 
respects the original notice remains unchanged.

    Dated: April 24, 1995.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-10425 Filed 4-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
Order entered May 9, 2022

In The 

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

No. 05-22-00229-CV

IN RE HEARTLAND EXPRESS, INC. OF IOWA, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-18-00697-D

ORDER Before Justices Osborne, Partida-Kipness, and Smith

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for

writ of mandamus. We also LIFT the stay issued by this Court’s March 18, 2022

order.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
Russell Eugene CARVER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9422.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Eric Damon GORDON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-4699

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 19, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See* § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (2002) ; *England v. State*, 940 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2006) ; *Williams v. State*, 707 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1998) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Dorsett v. State*, 166 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; *Shivers v. State*, 96 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ; *Atwater v. State*, 781 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).

SILBERMAN, BLACK, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
#### Rodney Victor HARRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Donald G. POWERS, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-2488.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 23, 2004.

Decided May 10, 2004.

Rodney Victor Harris, Appellant pro se.

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*879PER CURIAM.

Rodney Victor Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed.

Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corr.,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on October 21, 2003. The notice of appeal was filed on December 1, 2003. Because Harris failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny his motions to submit circuit court transcripts and for a continuance, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*