alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cause No. 03-14-00714-CV

IN THE AUSTIN COURT OF APPEALS 

On Appeal from the 98th Judicial District Court of Travis County 

Cause Number No. D-1-GN-12-002467 

KEVIN TARR, 

Appellant,

v. 

LANTANA SOUTHWEST HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Appellee.

AGREED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

Pursuant to Rule 10.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Appellant, Kevin 

Tarr, files this Agreed Motion to Extend Time, and ask that this Court allow him an 

additional 30 days to file his Appellant’s Brief. 

Currently, Appellant’s Brief is due on or before Wednesday, January 14, 2015. See

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(A). Appellant seeks a 30-day extension to file his Brief. See

Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(B).

Among others, Appellant seeks this extension because he and his current attorneys 

have jointly decided that it is in Appellant’s best interests that his current attorneys no 

longer represent Appellant on this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, 

a Motion to Withdrawal as Counsel of Record for Appellant has been filed today.

ACCEPTED

03-14-00714-CV

3654932

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

1/5/2015 4:14:14 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/5/2015 4:14:14 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
- 2 -

No other extensions have been sought or granted with regard to the deadline to file 

Appellant’s Brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(D).

PRAYER

Based on the foregoing, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court grant this 

Agreed Motion to Extend Time, and allow Appellant an additional 30 days by which to file 

his Brief, making the deadline for Appellant to file his Brief Friday, February 13, 2015. 

Respectfully submitted,

SIMON HERBERT & MCCLELLAND, LLP

By: /s/ Paul Simon

Paul Simon

State Bar No. 24003276

Rachel Berkley

State Bar No. 24082684

3411 Richmond Avenue, Suite 400

Houston, Texas 77046

(713) 987-7100 (phone)

(713) 987-7120 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT,

KEVIN TARR

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that, on January 5, 2015, I conferred with counsel for Appellee, and he has 

AGREED to the relief sought herein.

/s/ Paul Simon

Paul Simon
- 3 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on January 5, 2015, a copy of the foregoing was delivered in a

manner prescribed by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to:

Via Email: ggodkin@rmwbhlaw.com

Greg Godkin

Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC 

111 Congress Plaza, Suite 1620

Austin, Texas 78701

Attorney for Appellee, Lantana 

Southwest Homeowners’ Ass’n, Inc.

Via Email: kevin_tarr@yahoo.com; CMRRR # 7014 1200 0001 9112 1338; & 

Regular Mail

Mr. Kevin Tarr

7817 Oteka Cove

Austin, Texas 78735-18252

Appellant

/s/ Paul Simon

Paul Simon
---

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

I, Xin Lin, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| | (1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SGB International
      Holdings Inc. for the period ended June 30, 2010 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 Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of SGB International Holdings Inc..                                             

Date: August 16, 2010

| | /s/ Xin Lin                                                   
| | --------------------------------------------------------------
| | Xin Lin                                                       
| | President, CEO, CFO and Director                              
| | Principal Executive Officer, Principal
      Financial Officer
| | and Principal Accounting Officer                              

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to SGB
International Holdings Inc. and will be retained by SGB International Holdings
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

---
#### In the Matter of H.H. Warner, LLC, Appellant, v Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, Respondent.

Decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 87 AD3d 1388.

*986Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

|CERTIFICATION                              
|-------------------------------------------
|PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350         
|AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b)       
|OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the annual report of Viscount Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2011 (the
"Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated
below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of
      operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 18, 2011 | /s/ Stephen Pineau                                               
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                      | Stephen Pineau                                                   
|                      | Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer

---
### NUMBER 13

- 1 3

- 00 1 90

- C R



## COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

ALBERT RODRIGUEZ MEDELLIN

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On a ppeal from the 207 th District Court

of Comal County, Texas.



## ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

This cause is before the Court on the State ’ s first motion for extension of time to

file the brief in this matter. 1 Th e Court received appellant’s brief on April 28, 2014.

1 This case is before the Court on transfer from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin pursuant to a

docket equalization order issued by the Supreme Court of Texas. See T EX . G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 73.001

(West , Westlaw through 2013 3d C.S. ).2

A ppellant subsequently filed a motion for leave to file the brief and this was granted by

the Court on May 21, 2014. The State is requesting an extension of ninety days to file

its brief.

The Court is of the opinion that the State ’ s motion for extension of time should be

granted with order. Accordingly, we GRANT the State ’ s motion for extension of time and

ORDER the State to file the brief on or before August 26, 2014 . NO FURTHER

EXTENSI ONS WILL BE GRANTED IN THIS MATTER.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

11 th day of July, 2014

.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.
OREN SNOWDEN,

Defendant - Appellant. No. 23

- 3901 D.C. No. 2:18

- cr - 00018

- RCJ

- GWF -1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Robert C. Jones , District Judge , Presiding

Submitted June 17, 2024 **

Before: CANBY, PAEZ, and SUNG , Circuit Judges

. Oren Snowden appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Wright , 46 F.4th 938 , 944 (9th Cir. 202 2) , we affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 2 1 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 23

- 3901 Snowden contends that the district court erred by failing to treat his diabetes

and chronic kidney disease , along with the increased threat of contracting COVID

19 in prison , as extraordinary and compelling reasons for compassionate release. He suggests that the court may not have reviewed his medical re cords and thus may have relied on clearly erroneous facts concerning his health. Finally, he argues that the district court erred in its analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors because it improperly relied on old convictions t o conclude he

remain s a danger to the community and it “should have concluded that the term of imprisonment that Mr. Snowden has already served is sufficient to satisfy the purposes of sentencing.” Snowden’s speculation about the district court’s review of his medical records is belied by the court’s order , which shows its familiarity with Snowden’s health conditions and his arguments. But, even assuming the district court should

have treated Snowden’s medical conditions as extraordinary and compelling

— whic h the government concedes in light of the 2023 amendment to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 3

— Snowden has not shown any abuse of discretion in the court’s independe n t § 3553(a) analysis. See Wright , 46 F.4th at 9 47

- 48 ( holding that an erroneous application of § 1B1.13 is harmless if the court’s § 3553(a) an a lysis independently supports the denial of relief). Snowden’s assertion s that his criminal history is outdated and that he has served enough time are “mere disagreement s ”3 23

- 3901 with how the district court weighed the § 3553(a) factors and do not show an abuse

of discretion. See id. at 948.

We do not address Snowden’s argument that we should “ review ” his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) . Even assuming this argument can be raised in compassionate release proceedings, which we do not decide, Snowden did not raise it in the district court or in his opening brief

. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)

. AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,
 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Speedemissions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Parlontieri, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2) Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: March 29, 2004
/s/ Richard A. ParlontieriBy: Richard A. ParlontieriIts: President 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Speedemissions, Inc. and will be retained by Speedemissions, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
LMX Labs, LLC d/b/a Coinbase Derivatives

June 9, 2023

VIA CFTC Electronic Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Secretary of the Commission

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

Re: CFTC Regulation 40.6(d) Weekly Notification of Rule Amendments

Coinbase Derivatives Submission #2023-6E

Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick:

Pursuant to Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC” or “Commission”) Regulation

40.6(d), LMX Labs, LLC, d/b/a Coinbase Derivatives (the “Exchange” or “CDE”) hereby submits

this Weekly Notification of the following rule amendment issued during the week of June 5,

2023:

● Posting of the new Fee Schedule

The Exchange certifies that this submission has been concurrently posted on the Exchange’s

website at: https://www.coinbase.com/derivatives.

If you have any questions or require any further information, please contact me at

jane.downey@coinbase.com.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jane Downey

Chief Regulatory Officer

Attachments:

Appendix A Fee Schedule
Appendix A

2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 882 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 882

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age at which 
  distributions from qualified retirement plans are required to begin 
              from 70\1/2\ to 75, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2009

Mr. King of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the age at which 
  distributions from qualified retirement plans are required to begin 
              from 70\1/2\ to 75, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AGE FOR REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraphs (B)(iv)(I) and (C) of section 
401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by 
striking ``70\1/2\'' each place it appears and inserting ``75''.
    (b) Change in Required Beginning Date.--So much of clause (i) of 
section 401(a)(9)(C) of such Code, as amended by subsection (a), as 
precedes subclause (I) is amended to read as follows:
                            ``(i) In general.--The term `required 
                        beginning date' means December 31 of the later 
                        of--''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 219(d)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``70\1/2\'' in the heading and the text and inserting ``75''.
            (2) Section 408(c)(4) of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``70\1/2\'' in the heading and the text and inserting ``75''.
            (3) Section 408(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
        ``70\1/2\'' and inserting ``75''.
            (4) Section 457(d)(1)(A)(i) of such Code is amended by 
        striking ``70\1/2\'' and inserting ``75''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



|                                                                                                                                                                                  |  |  |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  |  |  | 
|AMENDED AND RESTATED ADVERTISING REPRESENTATION AGREEMENT                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Exhibit 10.8                                                                                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and Brantford Expositor Group
Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and Flamborough Review Newspaper
Inc.              
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and Niagara Newspaper Group Inc.                   
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and Peninsula Newspaper Group
Inc.                 
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and Southern Ontario Community
Newspaper Group Inc.
|                                                                                                                                                                                 
|Amended and Restated Advertising Representation Agreement, dated as of February
14, 2003, between CanWest Media Sales Limited and St. Catharines Standard Group
Inc.             
|
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kirby Glenn WORRELL, Jr., Defendant — Appellant.

No. 08-4009.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.

Decided: Sept. 15, 2008.

*221Richard L. Cannon, III, Cannon Law Offices, PLLC, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. George E.B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kirby Glenn Worrell, Jr., pled guilty to larceny of government property and aiding and abetting, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 (2000), and was sentenced to thirteen months in prison. On appeal, Worrell argues that the district court erred by denying him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*(“USSG”) § 3E1.1 (2006), because Worrell admitted to using cocaine at least two times while on pretrial release and missed at least six weeks of substance abuse treatment. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review the district court’s determination that Worrell failed to accept responsibility for clear error. *See United States v. Kise,*369 F.3d 766, 771 (4th Cir.2004). One of the factors the court may consider in deciding whether to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is whether the defendant has voluntarily terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct. *See*USSG § 3E1.1, comment, (n.l(b)). Wor-rell disputes the district court’s decision to deny him the adjustment because he argues that his drug use is unrelated to the criminal conduct to which he pled guilty. Most appellate courts have held that a sentencing court does not clearly err if it chooses to deny an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility based on the commission of criminal conduct that is different from the crime to which the defendant pled guilty. *See United States v. Prince,*204 F.3d 1021, 1023-24 (10th Cir.2000); *United States v. Ceccarani,*98 F.3d 126, 130-31 (3d Cir.1996); *United States v. Byrd,*76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir.1996); *United States v. McDonald,*22 F.3d 139, 144 (7th Cir.1994); *United States v. Pace,*17 F.3d 341, 343 (11th Cir.1994); *United States v. O’Neil,*936 F.2d 599, 600-01 (1st Cir.1991); *United States v. Watkins,*911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir.1990). In light of these authorities, we are persuaded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Worrell was not entitled to a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.*