alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00323

- CV

CHANDLER KNOWLES CPA S,

PLLC APPELLANT

V.

LARRY O'HARA APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUD GMENT

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

We have considered the parties’ “ Joint Motion To Dismiss Appeal .” It is

the court = s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)( 2 ), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be pa id by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J.

DELIVERED: November 23 , 2011

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
# Official Journal L 322/2016

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 322 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5929 November 2016 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 322

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5929 November 2016

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2066 of 21 November 2016 amending the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/2066 of 21 November 2016 amending the annexes to Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a common classification of territorial units for statistics (NUTS)

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Rehearing granted and appeal

dismissed by unpublished opinion

filed 12/4/00
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS R. MORKE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 00-6206

DAVID A. GARRAGHTY, Warden,

Greensville Correctional Center,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.

(CA-99-45-7)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: July 20, 2000

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,

and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas R. Morke, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thoms R. Morke appeals the district court's order dismissing as

untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2000), and a subsequent order denying relief on his motion

filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). A motion to alter or amend

judgment under Rule 59(e) shall be filed no later than ten days after

entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Because Morke's

motion was not filed within ten days of the entry of judgment, it must

be considered as a Rule 60(b) motion, rather than a Rule 59(e)

motion. See In re Burnley, 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). A Rule 60(b)

motion does not bring up for review the merits of the underlying substantive judgment, nor does it toll the period for filing an appeal of

the underlying judgment. See Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7, 264-65, 268-69 (1978).

Because Morke did not file his Rule 59(e) motion within ten days

of the district court's order dismissing his § 2254 petition, entered on

September 30, 1999, the time period for filing his appeal of that order

was not tolled. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Therefore, Morke's appeal

is only timely as to the district court's denial of his subsequent motion

for reconsideration. This Court reviews a denial of a Rule 60(b)

motion for abuse of discretion. See NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47

F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir. 1995).

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court's

denial of Morke's motion for reconsideration did not constitute an

abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 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

 2
null

0.94840795
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research: Pullman, WA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Pacific West Area Pullman, Washington Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research Docs





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Staff Organizational Chart
- Pullman Facilities
- Central Ferry Farm
- Prosser Facilities
- Frank Dugan

Central Ferry Farmheadline bar


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 32.1

BEA SYSTEMS, 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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Alfred S. Chuang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities Exchange Commission.

Date: December 7, 2007



By:

/s/ Alfred S. ChuangAlfred S. ChuangChief Executive Officer
2010 Base Salaries and Target Bonuses of Certain Officers



 Exhibit 10.1 
 2010 Base Salaries and Target Discretionary Bonuses 
  

										
	 Officer
	  	 Position
	  	Maximum
Base Salary	  	Target
Discretionary Bonus	 
	 Shane Evangelist
	  	Chief Executive Officer	  	$	367,770	  	$	294,216	1 
	 Ted Sanders
	  	Chief Financial Officer	  	$	307,500	  	$	153,750	1 
	 Aaron Coleman
	  	Executive Vice President of Operations and Chief Information Officer	  	$	284,040	  	$	142,020	1 
	 Houman Akhavan
	  	Vice President of Marketing	  	$	261,000	  	$	95,000	  
	 Charlie Fischer
	  	Senior Vice President of Global Procurement	  	$	220,500	  	$	90,000	  

  

	1	 Each of Messrs. Evangelist, Sanders and Coleman elected to have his bonus paid 50% in cash and 50% common stock of the Company, with the number of
shares determined by the closing price on January 4, 2010. For example, if the closing price of our stock on January 4, 2010 is $5.00 per share, and all target thresholds are met, Mr. Evangelist’s bonus would be comprised of
$147,108 in cash, and 29,421 shares of common stock.
#### John Willie MACK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anthony C. LIEBERT, Assistant Solicitor, Defendant-Appellee, and J. Roger Poole, Public Defender, Defendant.

No. 11-6858.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 25, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 30, 2011.

John Willie Mack, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edwin Calhoun Haskell, III, Smith & Has-kell, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John Willie Mack, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. *Mack v. Liebert,*No. 7:10-cv-02372-DCN, 2011 WL 2457354 (D.S.C. June 16, 2011 & June 17, 2011). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

453 CA 14-01560 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

KONDAUR CAPITAL CORPORATION, AS SEPARATE TRUSTEE OF MATAWIN VENTURES TRUST SERIES 2012-3, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V ORDER

DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

DIANNE L. LUNN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.
JOHN PINCUS, NEW YORK CITY, FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (J. Scott Odorisi, J.), entered July 10, 2014 in a mortgage foreclosure action. The order, among other things, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Hughes v Nussbaumer, Clarke & Velzy , 140 AD2d 988; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v Roberts & Roberts , 63 AD2d 566, 567; see also CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
#### Fanberg Realty Corporation, Respondent, v Travelers Companies et al., Appellants.

an action to recover damages for breach of a contract of insurance, defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.), dated June 6, 1984, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.

*583Plaintiff owned an apartment building which was destroyed as the result of the collapse of an adjoining building while the latter was undergoing renovation. Defendants were the insurers of plaintiff’s building at the time of the collapse. Plaintiff asserts that the policy covers its loss, claiming that it falls within the paragraph which insures against damage by "vandalism or malicious mischief’. The policy defines this phrase as "direct loss by willful and malicious damage to or destruction of property”. Plaintiff claims that the contractors working at the adjacent building failed to obtain a proper building permit and removed the main supporting members of the adjacent building and that this conduct constitutes malicious mischief within the meaning of the policy. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground the policy did not cover the claimed loss. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment on the ground that liability had been established. Special Term denied both motions upon a finding that the policy language was ambiguous, necessitating a trial.

Special Term’s finding was erroneous. This court has previously construed substantially the same language as that in the policy at bar *(see, Cresthill Indus. v Providence Washington Ins. Co.,*53 AD2d 488). Thus the language is not ambiguous as a matter of law. By cross-moving for summary judgment, plaintiff effectively conceded that no question of fact exists *(see, Kuehne & Nagel v Baiden,*36 NY2d 539, 544). Upon review of the allegations and according the plaintiff the benefit of any inferences which might be drawn therefrom, we hold that the alleged activities at the premises adjacent to plaintiff’s building did not constitute malicious mischief within the meaning of the policy. Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Niehoff and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
# Official Journal C 106/31 M

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 106 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6331 March 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 106

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6331 March 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions |
| | OPINIONS |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| | 549th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee, 22.1.2020-23.1.2020 |
| 2020/C 106/01 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The sustainable economy we need’ (own-initiative opinion) | 1 |

Contents

page

I   Resolutions, recommendations and opinions

OPINIONS

European Economic and Social Committee

549th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee, 22.1.2020-23.1.2020

2020/C 106/01

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The sustainable economy we need’ (own-initiative opinion)

1

---

| | III   Preparatory acts |
| --- | --- |
| | European Economic and Social Committee |
| | 549th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee, 22.1.2020-23.1.2020 |
| 2020/C 106/02 | Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 as regards the introduction of capacity limits for Eastern Baltic cod, data collection and control measures in the Baltic Sea, and Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 as regards permanent cessation for fleets fishing for Eastern Baltic cod’(COM(2019) 564 — 2019/0246 (COD)) | 10 |

III   Preparatory acts

European Economic and Social Committee

549th plenary session of the European Economic and Social Committee, 22.1.2020-23.1.2020

2020/C 106/02

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1139 as regards the introduction of capacity limits for Eastern Baltic cod, data collection and control measures in the Baltic Sea, and Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 as regards permanent cessation for fleets fishing for Eastern Baltic cod’(COM(2019) 564 — 2019/0246 (COD))

(COM(2019) 564 — 2019/0246 (COD))

10

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### KIELY et al. v. McMILLEN.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.

December 3, 1895.)

Action on Contract—Sufficiency of Evidence.

In an action to recover for the construction of a hydrant and drain, under a contract made by defendant’s husband, the plaintiffs failed to show that the husband was authorized to make the contract, or that the work was actually done under it, or that defendant owned the premises on which the hydrant and drain were placed. Heldi, that a motion for a non-suit should have been granted.

Appeal from Albany county court.

Action by Jeremiah Kiely and another against Mary H. McMillen to recover for work and materials furnished by plaintiffs to defendant under a contract made by defendant’s husband. There was a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before MAYHAM, P. J., and PUTNAM and HERRICK, JJ.

J. W. Ecker, for appellant.

George T. Kelly, for respondents.

PUTNAM, J.

The testimony offered by the plaintiffs before the justice was clearly insufficient to sustain the judgment. It was not shown that defendant was the owner of the premises on which the plaintiffs made the drain and placed the hydrant for which they sought to recover in the action. Nor did it appear that defendant’s husband was authorized by her to enter into the contract with plaintiffs under which they claimed. It was not shown whether the account set out in the complaint was charged or the bill thereof made out to defendant or her husband, and the receipts read in evidence failed to show the liability of defendant, as one of them acknowledged the payment of $50 by defendant’s husband on account, » and the other $12 by defendant on account. Again, the plaintiffs neglected to prove that they had laid the new drain and made the repairs entitling them to payment of $82.50 under their contract with defendant’s husband. We think an opinion in-the case is unnecessary. In the absence of testimony to sustain plaintiffs’ alleged cause of action defendant’s motion for a nonsuit should have been granted,. and hence the judgment of the county court should be reversed, with costs of this appeal, and the judgment of the justice’s court should also be reversed, with costs of the court below. All concur.
#### Anele R. Harrington *v.*Alfred T. Harrington et al.

Decided February 21, 1990

*Gordon R. Raynor,*in. support of the petition.

The named defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 20 Conn. App. 492, is denied.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

The following statement is provided by the undersigned to
accompany the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to any provision of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 or any other securities law.

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Report on Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Section 78) and that the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Broadway
Financial Corporation as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011.



|                     |  |     |  |                               
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------
|Date: April 27, 2012 |  | By: |  | /s/ Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw    
|                     |  |     |  | Wayne-Kent A. Bradshaw        
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer       
|                     |  |     |  | Broadway Financial Corporation
Opinion issued October 22, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00351-CR

———————————

RONNEY EARL WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 74312

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ronney Earl Williams, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s 

order granting his motion to suppress, dated May 18, 2015. The clerk’s record 

contains a judgment of acquittal signed on May 19, 2015. We dismiss the appeal.
2

Williams filed what appeared to be a premature notice of appeal on April 15, 

2015, but it states it is from the “judgment and/or order entered on record of the 

court on March 27, 2015.” The record contains no order signed on March 27, 

2015. The record also contains no trial court certification of the right of appeal.

Having found the record reveals that Williams received no adverse rulings 

and that he was acquitted of all charges, we hold that we have no jurisdiction over 

this appeal. See Chabera v. State, No. 01-03-00630-CR, 2004 WL 909243, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] April 29, 2004, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we dismiss Williams’ appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,552
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,043
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               178,595
<PP&E>                                       7,451,534
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,325,071
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,305,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,305,058
<SALES>                                        568,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               571,164
<CGS>                                          235,969
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  438,630
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 43,308
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             43,308
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    43,308
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>