alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

CEREMONIAL MISC. NO. 02-20

IN RE: THE MATTER OF THE RETIREMENT OF ROMULO R. ANTIPORDA

Before BARTLEY, Chief Judge, and PIETSCH, GREENBERG,

ALLEN, MEREDITH, TOTH, and FALVEY, Judges, and

NEBEKER, KRAMER, HOLDAWAY, GREENE, KASOLD, 

HAGEL, MOORMAN, LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Senior Judges. 

O R D E R

On the occasion of his retirement, the Court acknowledges the long and faithful service of Romulo 

R. Antiporda. Mr. Antiporda began his Federal service in 1972 when he enlisted in the United States 

Air Force. He retired as a Technical Sergeant in 1992 after 20 years of honorable service, including

two tours of duty in the Philippines, service in Germany during the Cold War supporting NATO and

taking part in war games, and service in support of the developers of NAVSTAR, now known as the 

Global Positioning System. Mr. Antiporda completed his Air Force career serving at Bolling AFB, and

spent the next five-plus years working for the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of the Air Force 

at the Pentagon, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Mr. Antiporda became our colleague at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims on May 17, 

1999, when he was appointed Records Management Clerk. During his 21 years at the Court, Mr. 

Antiporda played an instrumental role in the efficient operation of the Clerk's Public Office. Before 

implementation of the Court's Case Management-Electronic Case Filing (CM-ECF) system, Mr. 

Antiporda earned the respect of his colleagues by diligently and untiringly ensuring that all hard copy

and electronic files were complete and in order. After CM-ECF was implemented, Mr. Antiporda 

became central to running the Court's mail operations. Always patient and genuinely kind, Mr. 

Antiporda displayed an uncanny aptitude for the detail necessary to ensure the mail room ran smoothly, 

with every piece of mail, whether a pleading to be filed or a check to be deposited, expertly accounted 

for. Even in the middle of the still-continuing global pandemic, Mr. Antiporda continued to come to 

the Court daily to ensure that mail room tasks were completed promptly and correctly. In doing so, Mr. 

Antiporda effectively kept the Court open for the business of serving veterans seeking judicial review.

Mr. Antiporda's courtesy and good nature were his hallmark in handling all facets of his work. 

Whether working directly with veterans, attorneys, vendors, or Court staff, Mr. Antiporda proved 

himself to be the model of the quietly competent colleague concerned not with accolades but with the 

efficiency of the Court. He will be missed as a trusted colleague and friend.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, and as he departs to enjoy retirement, it is

ORDERED that Romulo R. Antiporda will take with him our admiration for his dedicated 46-year

Government career, our gratitude for the years of outstanding service he rendered to the Court, the 

warmth of our continued friendship, and our very best wishes.

DATED: May 31, 2020 PER CURIAM.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's
registration statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on August 16,
2001, and the Company's registration statement on Form S-8, filed with the
Commission on May 30, 2003, of our report dated March 12, 2008 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which reports are included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007.


/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC
Auburn Hills, Michigan
March 12, 2008


                                       65
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Jessie M. SNYDER and Robert L. Snyder, Deceased. Jessie M. Snyder, Appellant.

No. 10-3937.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 27, 2011.

Opinion filed June 1, 2011.

Amy Reynolds Hay, Esq., Paul D. Kovac, Esq., Office of the United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, Thomas J. Jaworski, Esq., John A. Nolet, Esq., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Jessie M. Snyder, Eau Claire, PA, pro se.

Before: BARRY, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

*Pro se*appellant Jessie Snyder appeals the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and will affirm the District Court’s judgment.

In 1991, a consent judgment was entered in favor of the government and against Snyder and her husband concerning the couple’s federal tax liabilities. The government then filed an abstract of the judgment in Butler County, Pennsylvania. However, despite its continuing efforts, the government has been unable to collect the judgment in full. In 2007, the government obtained an order of foreclosure and sale of properties belonging to Snyder. The order has not been executed because the occupants of the properties have refused to vacate the premises.

Under federal law, the initial 1991 judgment lien was scheduled to expire after 20 years. *See*28 U.S.C. § 3201(c)(1). However, § 3201(c)(2) authorizes a party to renew the lien for an additional 20 years by filing notice with the court. The government here did so, and on August 19, 2010, the District Court approved the renewal of the judgment lien. Snyder then filed a timely notice of appeal.

In her brief, Snyder does not challenge the District Court’s order renewing the lien. Instead, she argues that, because she has provided the government with, in *182her words, a “public money certificate,”1 she has fully discharged her debt. *See generally Trohimovich v. Dir. of Dep’t of Labor & Indus.,*21 Wash.App. 243, 584 P.2d 467, 469-70 (1978) (explaining the basis for and the legal frivolity of this argument). In her previous appeals, Snyder has repeatedly raised this argument, and we have rejected it each time. *See United States v. Snyder,*365 Fed.Appx. 407 (3d Cir.2010); *United States v. Snyder,*308 Fed.Appx. 651 (3rd Cir.2009); *Snyder v. Everson,*237 Fed.Appx. 734 (3d Cir.2007). We will not entertain it again. Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order renewing the government’s judgment lien.

1

. This "public money certificate” was a personal note by Snyder promising to pay the government $1.3 million.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                         378,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,249,966
<ALLOWANCES>                                   749,873
<INVENTORY>                                  7,447,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,922,528
<PP&E>                                       6,541,056
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,065,277
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,987,341
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,816,721
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        60,932
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,824,414
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,987,341
<SALES>                                     21,915,890
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,915,890
<CGS>                                       13,819,040
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,819,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                60,735
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             498,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,130,003)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (405,451)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (724,552)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (724,552)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.12)
        

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report of Coventure International
Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the year ending
July 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report), John Hromyk, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to his 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 result of operations of the Company.

|/s/ John
      Hromyk         | 
|----------------------------- | 
|John Hromyk                   | 
|Chief Executive Officer/Chief | 
|Financial Officer             | 
|October 26, 2005              | 

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

---
Judge Kasold abstained; Judge Hagel recused himself in the matter.

*

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

NO. 98-425

IN RE: A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 26(b)

Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and FARLEY, IVERS, STEINBERG,

GREENE, and KASOLD, Judges.*

O R D E R

On April 24, 1998, the Court held in abeyance two proposed revisions of Rule 26(b) of the

Court's Rules of Practice and Procedure until further order of the Court. In Re: A Proposed

Amendment To Rule 26(b), 12 Vet.App. 432 (1998) (en banc memorandum and order).

Since that order, the Secretary has filed four reports outlining steps taken by the Department

of Veterans Affairs to reduce the need for extensive extensions of time for completing actions before

the Court, and the Court has promulgated a major revision of Rule 26(b). See In Re: Further

Revision of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, Misc. No. 2-03 (May 16, 2003) (en banc order).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that the proposed revisions of Rule 26(b) are moot and this matter is CLOSED.

DATED: April 30, 2004 PER CURIAM.
Regional Court of

Supreme Court of District Territorial International

President Court Appeals USCAFC(1) USCFC(1) Courts Courts(2) Trade(3) TOTAL(4)

Roosevelt

(1933-45) 9 52 - - 136 3 7 207

Truman

(1945-52) 4 27 - - 102 3 4 140

Eisenhower

(1953-60) 5 45 - - 127 2 3 182

Kennedy

(1961-63) 2 20 - - 102 1 0 125

Johnson

(1963-68) 2 41 - - 125 0 8 176

Nixon

(1969-74) 4 45 - - 182 3 1 235

Ford

(1974-76) 1 12 - - 50 0 0 63

Carter

(1977-80) 0 56 - - 203 3 0 262

Reagan

(1981-88) 3 78 5 18 290 2 6 402

Bush

(1989-92) 2 37 5 2 148 2 1 197

Clinton

(1993-00) 2 62 4 7 305 2 5 387

Bush

(2001-08) 2 61 2 9 261 3 2 340

Obama

(2009-16) 2 49 6 3 268 2 4 334

Trump

(2017-20) 3 54 0 10 174 1 3 245

Biden*

(2021- 1 37 2 4 126 0 0 170

*Appointments made by the current President are as of December 31, 2023.

Judgeship Appointments by President

(1)The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (USCAFC) and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims (USCFC)

 were established in 1982. The USCFC was named the U.S. Court of Claims until 1992.

(3) Originally was designated the U.S. Customs Court; became the U.S. Court of International Trade in 1980.

(4) The total represents the overall number of confirmations rather than judges. As a result, individual judges may be counted more 

than once. For example, President Reagan appointed Antonin Scalia to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1982 and to the Supreme 

Court in 1986. Both appointments are included in the confirmations totals. In addition, the counts for the USCFC and the 

territorial courts include judges reappointed after their terms expired.

(2) The three territorial courts are: the district courts of Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. Judges of these 

courts are appointed for a fixed term and exercise the jurisdiction of a district court of the United States, as well as local jurisdiction.
Motion Denied; Order filed November 4 , 2021

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 21

- 00349

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.F.S., J.E.S., JR., AND J.J.S., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 59876



### ORDER
Appellant is represented by court

- appointed counsel on appeal, Amy Ngo Lacy. On August 27, 2021 , appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief stating the appeal is frivolous, under the authority of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). See In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326, 329

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (applying Anders procedures to a parental termination case). On the same day , counsel filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel
based on her Anders brief. The Supreme Court of Texas has concluded that the right to counsel under Family Code section 107.013(a)(1) through the exhaustion of appeals under Family Code section 107.016(2)(B) encompasses all proceedings in the Supreme Court of Texas, including the fi ling of a petition for review. In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). Once appointed by the trial court, counsel should bepermitted to withdraw only for good cause and on appropriate terms and conditions.

Id . Mere dissatisfaction of couns el or client with each other is not good cause. Id

. Nor is counsel’s belief that the client has no grounds to seek further review from the court of appeals’ decision. Id . Counsel’s obligation to the client still may be satisfied by filing an appellate brie f meeting the standards set in Anders v. California and its
progeny. See Anders , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396; In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 28. However, counsel’s motion to withdraw in this court, in the absence of additional grounds for withdrawal, may be pr emature. In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d at 27. If counsel
for appellant has concluded that there are no non

- frivolous points to urge in a petition for review in the Supreme Court of Texas, counsel should file in that court a petition
for review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief. See id . (stating that “[i]n this Court, appointed counsel’s obligations can be satisfied by filing a petition for
review that satisfies the standards for an Anders brief”). A petition for review must be filed with the Supreme Court clerk within 45 days after the following: (1) the date the court of appeals rendered judgment, if no motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is timely filed; or (2) the date of the court of appeals’ last ruling on all timely filed motions fo r rehearing or en banc reconsideration. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(a). The Supreme Court of Texas may extend the time to file a petition for review if a party files a motion complying with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) no later than 15 days after the last day for filing the petition. Tex. R. App. P. 53.7(f). Because the only grounds counsel has identified for withdrawal do not constitute good cause, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw.

PER CURIAM Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justic es Zimmerer and Wilson.
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -1 0- 00 23 9- CR David M. SEPULVEDA , Appellant
v . The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 227th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-4404 Honora ble Phili p A. Kazen Jr., J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: May 12, 2010 DI SMI SSED Appellant David M. Sepulveda plea ded g uilty to the offe nse of ag g rava ted robbe ry pursuant to a plea b ar gain agr eeme nt. As part of his plea-ba

rg ain, appe llant signe d a sepa rate “Waiver of Ap pe a l.” Th e tr ia l c ou rt imp os e d se nte nc e a nd sig ne d a c e rt if ic a te sta tin g tha

t th is “ is a ple a -b a rg a in
case , and the de fenda

nt has NO rig ht of appea l” and “the defe ndant has waived the rig ht of appea l.” See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(a)( 2). Appellant timely filed a notice of appe al. The c lerk’s r ecor d, which04
- 10
- 00 23 9- CR

- 2- includes the plea

barg ain ag ree ment and the tria l court’s Rule 25.2(a )(2) cer tification, has bee n filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d). T h i s court must dismiss an appe al “if a cer tification that shows the defe ndant has the r ight of appea l has not been ma de par t of the re cord.” Id. The c ourt g ave a

ppellant notice that the a

ppeal would be dismiss ed unless an amende d trial
c ou rt c e rt if ic a tio n s ho wi ng he ha s the ri g ht to a pp e a l we re ma de pa

rt of the a pp e lla te re c or d w ith in thirty day s. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 2 5. 2( d) ; 37 .1 ; Dan iel s v . S tat e , 110 S.W .3d 174 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, order) , dis

p. on me rit

s , No. 04 -0 3- 00 17 6- CR, 20 03 WL 21 50 83 47 (Jul y 2, 20 03 , p e t. ref ’d) ( n o t d es i g nated f

or publication). Appe llant’s appointed appe llate counse l filed a wr itten response , stating she has reviewed the rec ord and can find no rig ht of appeal. After revie wing the
rec ord and c ounsel’s notice, we ag ree appellant does not have a rig ht to appeal. Se e De ar s v . S tat e , 154 S.W .3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding tha t court of appeals should re view cle rk’s re cord to deter mine whether trial court’s certific ation is acc urate ). We there fore dismiss this appeal. T EX . R. A PP . P. 25.2(d).

PER C URI AM Do No t Pu

bli sh
Exhibit 13.1



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 on Form 20-F of Stora Enso Oyj (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Jukka Härmälä, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: October 7, 2005



/s/    JUKKA
HÄRMÄLÄJukka HärmäläChief Executive Officer




A signed original of this
certification required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 02-17

IN RE: RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGE

O R D E R

Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1), eligible retired Judges of the Court may be recalled by

the Chief Judge when further service is needed by the Court. Retired Judge Kenneth B. Kramer,

having complied with 38 U.S.C. § 7257, is designated a recall-eligible retired Judge. The

Chief Judge of the Court has determined that, if recalled, Judge Kramer would provide substantial

service necessary to meet the needs of the Court. 

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that, effective May 1, 2017, through July 31, 2017, recall-eligible retired

Judge Kramer is recalled from retired status in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7257(b)(1). 

Judge Kramer shall have and exercise all the judicial powers and duties of the office of a Judge in

active service and shall otherwise perform substantial service for the Court as requested by the Chief

Judge. It is further

ORDERED that Judge Kramer shall serve in recalled status in calendar year 2017 up to 90

days or its equivalent to review and decide appeals, motions, and other filings with the Court and to

perform other substantial service at the request of the Chief Judge. With Judge Kramer's consent,

service may be extended beyond 90 days. 

DATED: January 13, 2017 BY THE COURT:

ROBERT N. DAVIS

Chief Judge
Exhibit A



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 of Viryanet Ltd. (the Company) of our
independent auditors report dated February 17, 2004, except for note 1f, as to which the date is March 16, 2005, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Viryanet Ltd. appearing in the Companys Annual Report on Form 20-F/A
for the year ended December 31, 2003.



|                 |  |                                 
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------
|Tel-Aviv, Israel |  | KOST, FORER GABBAY and KASIERER 
|July 11, 2005    |  | A Member of Ernst & Young Global
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the Company's
registration statement on Form S-8, filed with the Commission on August 16,
2001, and the Company's registration statement on Form S-8, filed with the
Commission on May 30, 2003, of our reports dated March 5, 2007 relating to the
consolidated financial statements of MBT Financial Corp. (the "Company") and
management's report on the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting, which reports are included in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.

PLANTE & MORAN, PLLC

Auburn Hills, Michigan
March 9, 2007

                                       59
Exhibit 13.1

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 ITSA Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Hermano Studart Lins de Albuquerque, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Hermano Studart Lins
de Albuquerque

Hermano Studart Lins de
AlbuquerqueChief Executive Officer

June 30, 2004