alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13
- 2 3
- 00 240
- C R
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JIMMY CERVANTES , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________ On a ppeal from the 107 th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Tijerina, Silva, and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva
Appellant filed a notice of appeal attempt ing to appeal a judgment in trial court

ca u se number 2021

- D C R

- 84

- A

. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Upon review of the documents filed, t he trial court has certified that this “is a plea bargain case, and the [ d ] efendant has NO right of appeal

. ” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).
On June 7 , 2023 , th e Court ordered appellant ’ s counsel to review the record and2 determine whether appellant had a right to appeal . On June 21 , 2023, appellant ’ s counsel responded stating that the no tice of appeal was filed only out of an abundance of caution. Appellant’s counsel, after reviewing the record and speaking with trial counsel, reached
the con clusion that the trial certificate was correct, and that appellant does not have the right of appeal

. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed
if the trial court ’ s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of appeal.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d) , 37.1, 44.3. Accordingly , this case is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. CLARISSA SILVA Justice Do not publish. T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed on the 29th day of June , 202 3
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25930-25931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11897]



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


NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

District of Columbia Historic Preservation Review Board

AGENCY: National Capital Planning Commission.

ACTION: Proposed sports and entertainment arena; public meeting on 
historic issues; change of date.

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

SUMMARY: In a notice published on April 25, 1995 (60 FR 20288), the 
National Capital Planning Commission (Commission) announced that as 
part of the State Historic Preservation Officer's Review of the 
potential effects on historic properties of the proposed sports and 
entertainment arena, the Historic Preservation Review Board 
[[Page 25931]] would hold a public meeting on May 24, 1995. The purpose 
of that meeting was to review the Section 106 documentation which 
identifies affected historic properties, assesses the potential 
impacts, and discusses potential measures to mitigate or avoid the 
adverse effects, including consideration of alternative sites.
    The date of that meeting has changed. The meeting will now be held 
on July 10, 1995 at 10:00 a.m., 441 4th Street NW. (#1 Judiciary 
Square), Room 220 South (Zoning Commission Hearing Room).
    The documentation to be considered will be available to the Board 
and to the general public on or after June 9, 1995 and may be reviewed 
by calling the Historic Preservation Division.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nancy Witherell, National Capital Planning Commission, 801 Pennsylvania 
Ave. NW., Suite 301, Washington, DC 20576, Phone: (202) 724-0174 or 
Steve Raiche, D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 614 H 
Street NW., Room 305, Washington, DC 20001, Phone: (202) 727-7360.

Sandra H. Shapiro,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-11897 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7502-02-M
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 1 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 2 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 3 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 4 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 5 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 6 of 7

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 109   filed 11/19/14   page 7 of 7
Brian MEEK, petitioner, v. David BERGH, Warden.

No. 13-6668.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
----

Exhibit 32

 

Certification of CEOand CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

In connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-QSB of Modern Technology Corp (the "Company") for the quarterended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the "Report"), Anthony Welch, as Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, and Robert Church, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sect.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sect. 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his and her knowledge,respectively, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

|  
By:
***/s/ Anthony Welch***
Dated:         May 20, 2005
 
Anthony Welch     Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
By:
***/s/ Robert Church***
Dated:   May 20, 2005
 
Robert Church     Chief Financial Officer 
 

 

A signed original of this writtenstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has beenprovided to Modern Technology Corp. and will be retained by Modern TechnologyCorp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

1 |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Debí quedarme en casa

Todo lo que quería era regresarme a la cama pero Llegué al trabajo y marque mi tarjeta. Estoy seguro Me levante sintiéndome muy mal. Tenía diarrea con tantas cuentas por pagar acumuladas, no me de que me veía tan mal como me sentía. Yo sabía y vómitos a la vez. podía dar el lujo de quedarme en casa. que no debía estar aquí.

Las órdenes se estaban acumulando, así que de Carlos estaba pasándolo muy bien con su familia. Cuando la comida llegó a la mesa, comenzó 

inmediato empecé a preparar las hamburguesas. Este era su restaurante favorito. a comer de inmediato y se terminó su 

hamburguesa y parte de la de su hermana.

Esa noche, Carlos se retorcía de dolor en el Luego supe que otras 33 personas se enfermaron 

estómago. Estaba muy enfermo. Hubo que llevarlo porque yo toqué sus alimentos cuando estaba 

a la sala de emergencias del hospital. enfermo. El Departamento de Salud cerró el 

restaurante. 

Debí haberme quedado en casa. Yo sabía que 

eso era lo correcto y pude haber evitado todo lo 

que ocurrió. Como el restaurante se vio obligado a 

cerrar por un tiempo, perdí mi fuente de ingresos. 

Estaba muy avergonzado. 

Proteje a todos. Si estás enfermo, quédate en casa.
Derrick LITTLE, petitioner, v. WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD, et al.

No. 12-9338.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 30, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>

          WINTHROP RESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATES III, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                          FORM 10-QSB MARCH 31, 1997



Supplementary information required pursuant to section 9.4 of the partnership
agreement:

1.    Statement of cash available for distribution for the three months ended 
      March 31, 1997:

        Net Income                                                 $ 39,000
        Add:     Depreciation and amortization                       46,000
        Less:    Equity in income of Local Limited Partnerships     (13,000)
                 Cash to reserves                                   (45,000)
                                                                   --------
        Cash Available for Distribution                            $ 27,000
                                                                   ========
        Distributions allocated to General Partners                $  2,000
                                                                   ========
        Distributions allocated to Limited Partners                $ 25,000
                                                                   ========


2.    Fees and other compensation paid or accrued by the Partnership to the
      General Partners, or their affiliates, during the three months ended 
      March 31, 1997:


      Entity Receiving              Form of
        Compensation              Compensation                         Amount
      ----------------            ------------                         ------

      General Partners            Interest in Cash Available  
                                    for Distribution                   $ 2,000

      WFC Realty Co., Inc.
      (Initial Limited Partner)   Interest in Cash Available 
                                    for Distribution                   $     5



                                   12 of 12
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed June 24 ,

2021

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 20

- 00844

- CR NO. 14

- 20

- 0084 5

- CR NO. 14

- 20

- 0084 6

- CR NO. 14

- 20

- 0084 7

- CR NO. 14

- 20

- 0084 8

- CR

____________ RICARDO S ALDANA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEX AS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 1623964 , 162396 5, 162396 6, 162396 7, and 162396 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Ricardo Saldana has signed and f iled a written request to withdraw his notice of appeal in ea ch of these cases

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.2

We dismis s the appeal in each case and direct the clerk of the court to issue the mandat e of the court immediately. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan

. Do Not Publish

– Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

v. ) No. 2:12 CR 12 

)

FLETCHER PETERSON. )

ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA OF GUILTY,

 ADJUDICATION OF GUILTY AND

NOTICE OF SENTENCING

Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, to

which the defendant has waived objection, and subject to this court’s consideration of the

Plea Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3), the plea of guilty of the offense charged

in Count 1 of the Indictment is hereby accepted, and defendant is adjudged guilty of that

offense. Defendant and his counsel shall appear before the undersigned for sentencing on

Thursday, August 2, 2012, at 9:45 a.m..

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 and this court’s General Order 2001-1 require

that within 14 days following receipt of the pre-sentence report counsel communicate in

writing with the probation officer and opposing counsel any objections as to any material

information, criminal history, sentencing classification, guidelines sentencing range, and

policy statements contained in or omitted from the pre-sentence report. Importantly, the

court advises that failure to object to the probation officer’s conclusions regarding the

applicability of § 3553(a) factors may be considered as an admission that defendant has no

objections to that section of the pre-sentence report. Also, if there are no objections to the

contents of the pre-sentence report, defendant must submit to the probation officer and
opposing counsel a written acknowledgment of having no objections.

Not less than seven (7) days before the sentencing hearing, defendant and the

government shall both submit sentencing memoranda which may contain requests for any

particular sentence that is reasonable, including any government request for a lower sentence

pursuant to §5K1.1 of the Guidelines Manual and/or Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(e), and also any

and all other matters or circumstances thought relevant to determining an appropriate

sentence for the defendant. These filings are mandatory because they are helpful to the court

in determining an appropriate sentence for defendant and also because they eliminate any

surprises at the sentencing hearing.

SO ORDERED.

Date: June 27, 2012

s/James T. Moody 

JUDGE JAMES T. MOODY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Warren Lee HILL, Jr., petitioner, v. Carl HUMPHREY, Warden.

No. 12-10449.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 2, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
ISSAC L. JOHNSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 4175

_______ ______________________/

Opinion filed December 8, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Alachua County

. Mark W. Moseley , Judge

.

Issac L. Johnson, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Dismissed without prejudice to the appellant filing a petition for belated

appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

WETHERELL, MARSTILLER, and BILBREY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TROY WILSON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 45 EAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
Exhibit 10.36


EXHIBIT 10.36




AMENDMENT TO THE INDENTURE OF LEASE 




Pursuant to Section 15.03, Entire Agreement, of the indenture of Lease dated August 1, 1998, between Woodruff Properties, Landlord, and Talk America, Incorporated, Tenant, the parties hereby execute the following modifications to their agreement: 




(1)  The term of said lease shall be extended for a period of two (2) years commencing August 1, 2003 and ending July 30, 2005, 




(2)  Tenant hereby agrees to pay monthly rent plus CAM charges totaling $4941.56 to the landlord beginning with the payment period starting August 1, 2003. Common area maintenance and taxes, since collected in advance, will be adjusted to reflect actual pr-rata charges. CAM charges will be calculated on 5304 square feet; which is 13.87% of total building space. 




(3)  The Tenant will occupy 4536 sq. ft. @ $11.00 per sq.ft. Additional 768 sq. ft. will be at no charge, which will bring the total square footage to 5304 actually netting at $9.31 per sq.ft./$4115.02 per month. 




(4)  Rent for August 2, 2003 will be free. 




(5)  Landlord will reimburse Tenant $10,000.00 of Tenant upfit, payable upon receipt of bills for the upfit. 




(6)  Definition of leased space. See Attached. 




(7)  Contract work on space to be completed in 45 day; April 23, 2003. 




(8)  Except for the extension of term and new rent amount described above, all other terms of the Indenture of Lease dated August 1, 1998 shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby accepted and ratified as set forth fully herein. 

 


	 
	 	 	 
	



	 






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Landlord and the Tenant have respectfully signed and sealed this Amendment to the Indenture of Lease as of the 10th day of March 2003. 




        WOODRUFF PROPERTIES 

            By:__/s/ Frank Rogers___________ 

            Its. __Partner___________________ 


        TALK AMERICA, INCORPORATED 

       By:___/s/ William McGrath_______ 

              Its: Sr. Vice President, Human Resources and Administration 

 

        March 19, 2003
Jorge Nahum Escutia MENDOZA, petitioner, v. Elvin VALENZUELA, Warden.

No. 12-9000.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 25239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11600]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases; Meeting: Board of Scientific Counselors

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Allergy 
and Infectious Diseases, on June 12-14, 1995. The meeting will be held 
at Twinbrook II, Room 200, 12441 Parklawn Drive, Rockville, Maryland.
    The meeting will be open to the public on June 12 from 9:30 a.m. to 
11 a.m. and from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. On June 13 the meeting will 
be open from 8 a.m. until 8:30 p.m. On June 13 the meeting will be open 
from 8 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. During the open sessions, the permanent 
staff of the Laboratory of Immunogenetics, Laboratory of Molecular 
Structure and the Laboratory of Immunopathology will present and 
discuss their immediate, past and present research activities.
    In accordance with the provisions set forth in sec. 552b(c)(6), 
Title 5, U.S.C. and sec. 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-463, the meeting will be 
closed to the public on June 12 from 8:30 a.m. until 9:30 a.m., from 11 
a.m. until 11:15 a.m., and from 12:15 p.m. until recess; on June 13 
from 8:30 a.m. until recess; and on June 14 from 8 a.m. until 
adjournment, for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual 
intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of 
Allergy and Infectious Diseases, including consideration of personal 
qualifications and performance, the competence of individual 
investigators, and similar items, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Ms. Claudia Goad, Committee Management Officer, National Institute 
of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Solar Building, Room 3C26, National 
Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, 301-496-7601, will 
provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of committee members upon 
request. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, 
such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable 
accommodations, should contact Ms. Goad in advance of the meeting.
    Dr. Franklin A. Neva, Executive Secretary, Board of Scientific 
Counselors, NIAID, National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room 
4A31, telephone 301-496-3006, will provide substantive program 
information.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93-301, National 
Institutes of Health.)

    Dated: May 5. 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, National Institutes of Health.
[FR Doc. 95-11600 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Albert E. DEW, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Katherine DEWALD, Nurse; Renee Wolfe, Nurse, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 03-7847.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 29, 2004.

Decided May 4, 2004.

*148Albert E. Dew, Appellant pro se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

Albert E. Dew appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a party to provide “a short and plain statement of the claim.” The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. *See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,*10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir.1993). A dismissal without prejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [to the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiffs case.’ ” *Id.*at 1067 (quoting *Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates,*844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir.1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, we must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” *Domino Sugar,*10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, as the district court explained, Dew can “cure the defect by amending his complaint to comply with Rule 8.” Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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*
Jacob Kojo AMENUVOR, petitioner, v. Joseph F. MAZURKIEWICZ, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Greensburg.

No. 12-7480.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                            9,017
<SECURITIES>                                    194,987
<RECEIVABLES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                204,004
<PP&E>                                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  204,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 0
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                        371,322
<OTHER-SE>                                     (167,318)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    204,004
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5,728
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 23,625
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (17,897)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (17,897)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.004)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0
        

</TABLE>