alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 14, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00948-CV

GREATLAND INVESTMENT, INC., GREATLAND RESIDENTIAL, INC., 

H-T INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND SCL REALTY INVESTMENT, 

INC., Appellants

V.

CATHERINE LE AND LAW FIRM OF CATHERINE LE, PLLC, Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-78987

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from an order signed June 7, 2022. The notice of appeal 

was filed December 27, 2022. To date, our records show that appellants have not

paid the appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring payment of fees in 

civil cases unless party is excused by statute or by appellate rules from paying 

costs). Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (appellate fees and costs).
2

On January 26, 2023, this court ordered appellants to pay the appellate filing 

fee on or before February 6, 2023 or the appeal would be dismissed. Appellants

have not paid the appellate filing fee or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c) (allowing 

involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply with notice 

from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
EXHIBIT 21.1

Edgewater Technology, Inc. owns one hundred percent (100%) of the issued and outstanding shares of each of the following subsidiaries.



|                                      |  |                           
|------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|Subsidiary                            |  | State or Country of Origin
|Edgewater Technology (Delaware), Inc. |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology (Europe) Limited |  | United Kingdom            
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology-Ranzal, Inc.     |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology Securities Corp. |  | Massachusetts, USA        
|                                      | 
|Fullscope, Inc.                       |  | Delaware, USA             
|                                      | 
|Edgewater Technology-Meridian, Inc.   |  | Delaware, USA
ACCEPTED12-14-00287-crTWELFTH COURT OF APPEALSTYLER, TEXAS5/26/2015 3:19:21 PMCATHY LUSKCLERK
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM INTENSIVA
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31,1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       5,105,096
<SECURITIES>                                10,767,101
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,579,922
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,270,478
<INVENTORY>                                    254,177
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,289,500
<PP&E>                                       3,434,560
<DEPRECIATION>                                 477,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,464,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,598,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         9,905
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,136,013
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,464,362
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,748,042
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,863,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,246,989
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,176,308
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              81,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,985,626)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,985,626)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,985,626)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.48)


</TABLE>
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 11/5/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMES CAPADONA,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 96-1154

(D.C. No. 95-N-2316)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Capadona, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals from the denial of

his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence that was

entered upon a guilty plea. Mr. Capadona’s notice of appeal was filed on April 11, 1996,

prior the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L.

No. 104-132, § 102, 110 Stat. 1217 (1996). Although the act amends the requirements for
- 2 -

bringing a second § 2255 motion, we do not apply it because this appeal was pending

prior to its enactment. See Edens v. Hannigan, 87 F.3d 1109, 1112 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996).

In his brief on appeal, Mr. Capadona argues that the district court erred in denying

one of his claims (concerning perjured testimony) without an evidentiary hearing. In

view of Mr. Capadona’s earlier § 2255 motion, see United States v. Capdona, 54 F.3d

788, 1995 WL 311757 (10th Cir. 1995) (unpub. order and judgment affirming denial of 

motion), the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing. Whether we

construe Mr. Capadona’s second motion as raising the same claims raised previously or

new claims, he has failed to demonstrate cause, prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of

justice that would excuse the untimeliness of these claims. Without such demonstration,

the resolution of this matter without reference to the merits is not error. See Rule 9(b),

Rules Governing Section 2255 Procedings for the United States District Courts; George

v. Perrill, 62 F.3d 333, 335 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Richards, 5 F.3d 1369, 1370

(10th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
BRANTLEY LAKELatitude: 32.544Longitude: -104.381Elevation: 3249

BRANTLEY LAKE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sierra Blanca Site Page...



Sierra Blanca

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Adams Ranch #1 Site Page...



Adams Ranch #1

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wesner Springs Site Page...



Wesner Springs

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Elk Cabin Site Page...



Elk Cabin

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Santa Fe Site Page...



Santa Fe
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

STEPHEN LEVERN LUCAS

Respondent

Docket Number:. 2023-0127

Enforcement Activity Number: 7 654873

CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On May 10, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of Settlement

Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case under 33

c.F.R. I 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find that it is fair

and reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of record, it is hereby ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement rs

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the pre-hearing conference scheduled to take place May

22,2023, is CANCELLED.

vs.
SO ORDERED.

Done and dated this May 16,2023,

at Baltimore. Maryland

HON. LTNEKA N. QUIJANO

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
Exhibit 32.1



PERICOM SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED



PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 25, 2004 (the
Report), I, Alex C. Hui, 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.



February 8, 2005



By:

/s/ Alex C. HuiAlex C. HuiChief Executive OfficerPericom Semiconductor Corporation
#### In the Matter of Noel Feustel, Appellant, v Scott S. Rosenblum et al., Respondents.

Submitted March 5, 2007;

decided May 3, 2007

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved. Motion for leave to appeal denied.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00097-CV

Associated Press, Appellant

v. David Paulin, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 200TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN301148, HONORABLE PAUL DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The Associated Press has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss its appeal, asserting that it no longer wishes to pursue this appeal because the parties have settled their differences.

We grant the motion and dismiss this appeal.

Mack Kidd, Justice Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Pemberton Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: May 6, 20042
- Skip to Primary Navigation
      - Skip to Main Content
      - Skip to Footer

          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   
          -   

        -  Water & Power            - Dams
          - Powerplants
          - Projects
          - Agrimet/Hydromet
          - Water Operations 
        -  Resources & Research            - Programs
          - Technical Service Center
          - Research & Development
          - Reclamation Manual
          - Environmental Resources/Reports
          - Library 
        -  About Us            - Mission/Vision
          - Fact Sheet
          - Commissioner
          - Addresses/Contacts
          - Organizational Chart
          - Leadership Bios
          - Employment
          - Contact 
        -  Recreation & Public Use            - Find Recreation
          - Recreation.gov
          - Public Use 
        -  News & Multimedia            - News Releases
          - News Stories
          - Speeches
          - Congressional Testimony
          - Fact Sheets
          - Photos
          - Multimedia
          - Social Media 

# Youth

              - Reclamation
              - Youth
              - Volunteer

YOUTH              - Youth
              - Recreation
              - Education
              - Volunteer
              - Employment
              - Contact
              - News

## Volunteer

In Fiscal Year 2009, Reclamation carried on the tradition of engaging youth through volunteer activities that expose young people to the great outdoors while improving natural resources. Youth service projects contributed to the 43,002 total volunteer hours calculated. Valuable youth volunteer activities on Reclamation lands and waters included a Boy Scout Eagle Scout project and a large-scale clean up during a National Public Lands Day event along the 52-mile San Diego River watershed. The volunteers assisted in removal of 42,100 pounds (21.05 tons) of trash and debris, collection of discarded automobile tires, car batteries, aluminum cans, bottles, and assorted scrap metal in support of California's recycling initiative.

If your organization is interested in a volunteer activity on Reclamation lands or waters, please contact Cathy Hulick at chulick@usbr.gov.

*Last Updated: 10/3/17*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - Recreation.gov
            - USA.gov
#### In the Matter of Charles Fisher, on Behalf of Himself and as Representative of a Class of all Others Similarly Situated, Appellant, v Board of Education of Watertown City School District et al., Respondents.

Submitted January 8, 2007;

decided March 27, 2007

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot.

Judge Pigott taking no part.
----

**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION 

I, Kirk Boyd, certify that: 

1.     I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-KSB/A; 

2.     Based on my knowledge,this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3.     Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisannual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this annual report; 4. The registrant's other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

(a)    designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared; 

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

(c)    disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registration'sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant'sinternal control over financial reporting; and 

5.     The registrant's othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and theaudit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function): 

(a)    all significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and 

(b)    any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant's internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: July 17, 2007 

/s/ Kirk Boyd                 

By: Kirk Boyd Chief Accounting Officer 

----
<PAGE>

               CONSOLIDATED CIGAR HOLDINGS INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
          Disclosure of Earnings per share: Complex Capital Structure
              For The Years Ended December 31, 1994, 1995 and 1996


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  1994          1995          1996
                                              ------------  ------------  ------------
<S>                                             <C>           <C>           <C>       
PRIMARY

Weighted average common
  shares outstanding                            24,600,000    24,600,000    26,890,574

Net effect of dilutive
  stock options - based on the modified
  treasury stock method for 1996
                                              ------------  ------------  ------------
                                                24,600,000    24,600,000    26,890,574
                                              ============  ============  ============
New income                                    $      7,684  $     13,930  $     29,795
                                              ============  ============  ============
Net income per share                          $       0.31  $       0.57  $       1.11
                                              ============  ============  ============


FULLY DILUTED

Weighted average common
  sahres outstanding                                                        26,890,574

Net effect of dilutive
  stock options - based on the modified
  treasury stock method for 1996                                               153,919
                                                                          ------------
                                                                            27,044,493
                                                                          ============
Net income                                                                $     29,795
                                                                          ============
Net income per share                                                      $       1.10
                                                                          ============
</TABLE>

Note: Fully diluted earnings per common share were the same as primary earnings
      per common share and are not presented for 1994 and 1995.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report of eLinear, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A  (First  Amendment)  for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Kevan  Casey,  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  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.



/s/  Kevan Casey
-------------------------------
Kevan Casey,
Chief Executive Officer
September 7, 2004


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


<PAGE>
# C_2022465EN.01020901.xml

| 6.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 465/209 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 465/209

---

P9_TA(2022)0131

Common system of value added tax (VAT): extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 3 May 2022 on the proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the extension of the application period of the optional reverse charge mechanism in relation to supplies of certain goods and services susceptible to fraud and of the Quick Reaction Mechanism against VAT fraud (COM(2022)0039 — C9-0053/2022 — 2022/0027(CNS))

(Special legislative procedure — consultation)

(2022/C 465/19)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2022)0039), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2022)0039),

| — | having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0053/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0053/2022),

| — | having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 82 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0128/2022), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A9-0128/2022),

| 1. | Approves the Commission proposal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Asks the Commission to carry out an assessment of the effects of the reverse charge mechanism before any further extension of its application period; |
| --- | --- |

2.

| 3. | Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

3.

| 4. | Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to substantially amend the text approved by Parliament; |
| --- | --- |

4.

| 5. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
| --- | --- |

5.

---