alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 19, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01191-CR

DONALD LEWIS WASHINGTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-53040-H

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant 

has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any 

other reason.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal. If 

the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeal, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, it shall next 

determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs 

for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the 

trial court shall make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial 

court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective 

representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds 

appellant is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the 

appeal.
 The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who 

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanation for the delay 

in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can 

be filed. 

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, 

any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date 

of this order.

The appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, 

whichever is earlier.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CHARLES RINGGOLD
,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 265, 2015 § § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware, § in and for New Castle County § Cr. ID No. 0907 029340 § §

Submitted: August 27 , 2015 Decided: September 2 , 2015

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; HOLLAND
, and SEITZ , Justices.

ORDER

This 2nd day of September 2015 , it appears to the Court that :
(1) On May 27, 2015
, the Court received the appellant’s notice of appeal
from a Superi or Court order, dated March 16, 2015 and docketed on March 17,

2015 , denying the appellant’s motion for correction of sentence

. Under Supreme

Court Rule 6 (a)(iii) , a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before
April 16, 2015

. (2) On June 24, 2015
, t he Chief Deputy Clerk issued a notice directing

t he appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed as un timely
filed under Supreme Court Rule 6. The appellant requested, and received, an
extension to file a response to the notice to show cause. The appellant did not2

respond to the notice to show cause until after the time for the extension had
expired, mak ing his appeal subject to dismissal. 1 In his untimely response to the
notice to show cause, the appellant argues that he has established good cause for

the untimely notice of appeal because he was ill and did not have access to legal
resources or legal assistance

. (3) Even if the appellant’s response to the notice to show cause was timely, this appeal must be dismissed. Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 2 A
notice of appeal must be received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within
the applicable time period in order to be effective. 3 An appellant’s pro se status
does not excuse a failure to comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of

Su preme Court Rule 6. 4 Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file
a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel, an untimely
appeal cannot be considered. 5

(4) The appellant does not claim , and the record does not reflect, that his
failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel

. Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the general rule that
mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. Thus, the Court concludes that
this appeal must be dismissed.

1 Supr. Ct. R. 3(a)( 2); Supr. Ct. R. 29(b). 2 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989). 3 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 4 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 485

- 87 (Del. 2012). 5 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rule 29 (b ),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
#### Jamel STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-529-pr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2013.

Jamel Stevens, pro se, Oakdale, LA.

Francis F. Caputo, Jonathan A. Popolow, for Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY., for Defendant-Appellees.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., JOSÉ A. CABRANES, BARRINGTON D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Jamel Stevens, proceeding *pro se,*appeals the District Court’s judgment dismissing, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint raising claims of deliberate indifference to his medical needs and deprivation of property without due process. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review *de novo*the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and construe the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. *See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). The complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” *Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and “allow[ ] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is hable for the misconduct alleged,” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Although all allegations contained in the complaint are assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to legal conclusions.” *Id.*We read *pro se*complaints liberally with “special solicitude” and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that [they] suggest[].” *Hill v. Curcione,*657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Having conducted an independent and *de novo*review of the record, we conclude that the District Court properly dismissed Stevens’s claims. We affirm for substantially the same reasons stated by Judge Furman in his thorough and well-reasoned Opinion of January 8, 2013. *See Stevens v. City of New York,*No. 12 Civ. 3808(JMF), 2013 WL 81327 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2013).

We have considered all of Stevens’s arguments and find them to be without mer*112it. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the District Court.
<PAGE>


Exhibit 10.8


    Agreement dated as of January 1, 1997 between Medjet Inc., a Delaware
corporation ("Employer") and Thomas Handschiegel ("Employee").

                                 W I T N E S S E T H

    WHEREAS, Employer and Employee are parties to an Employment Agreement dated
as of March 18, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement") and Employer and Employee
desire to amend the Employment Agreement to increase the Employee's Base Salary
thereunder;

    NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

    1.   Effective January 1, 1997 the Base Salary under the Employment
Agreement is hereby increased to $101,100 per year.

    2.   Employee hereby agrees that he shall not be entitled to a car
allowance.

    3.   Except as amended hereby, the Employment Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
first above written.

                                          MEDJET INC.

                                          By:   /s/ Eugene I. Gordon
                                                ----------------------------


                                          /s/ Thomas M. Handschiegel
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Thomas Handschiegel
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edward Van Steenburg, Appellant, v Joseph Wasser, as Sullivan County Sheriff, Respondent.

Submitted March 8, 2010;

decided May 11, 2010

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from that part of the Appellate Division order that affirmed the dismissal of the habeas corpus proceeding, denied; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the remainder of the Appellate Division order, dismissed upon the ground that such portion of the order does not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cornell Long, Appellant.

Submitted April 16, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 89 AD3d 1513.

Motion for poor person relief granted.
#### Jill Williams et al., Respondents, v State of New York, Appellant.

Submitted February 6, 2012;

decided February 9, 2012

Reported below, 84 AD3d 412.

Motion by Marvin Bernstein, Director of Mental Hygiene Legal Service, First Judicial Department, et al. for leave to appear amici curiae on the appeal herein granted only to the extent that the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 19 copies filed within seven days.
#### Rose Group Park Avenue LLC et al., Appellants, v New York State Liquor Authority, Respondent. The Preservation Coalition et al., Intervenors-Respondents.

Submitted March 26, 2012;

decided April 26, 2012

Reported below, 93 AD3d 1.

Motion by Brown Memorial Baptist Church et al. for leave to file a memorandum of law amici curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein, and for leave to file a brief amici curiae on the appeal herein, dismissed as academic.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Fish and Wildlife Service 

# AGENCY:

Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of receipt of application. 

                    The following applicant has applied for scientific research permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to sections 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,                     *et seq.*).                 

## Permit Number TE838055-8 

### Applicant: Ecological Specialists, Inc., St. Peters, Missouri 

The applicant requests an amendment to existing endangered species take permit number TE838055-7 to increase the scope of covered activities to include projects in the State of Michigan. The existing permit authorizes the applicant to take endangered and threatened unionids throughout ten states. The scientific research is aimed at enhancement of survival of the species in the wild. 

Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication. 

                    Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who requests a copy from the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111-4056,                     *peter_fasbender@fws.gov*, telephone (612) 713-5343, or Fax (612) 713-5292.                 

Dated: May 25, 2001. 

T.J. Miller, 

Acting, Assistant Regional Director,, Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 01-14053 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### In the Matter of Island Point, Inc., Respondent, v Board of Assessors et al., Appellants.

[876 NYS2d 136]—

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, title 1, to review real property tax assessments for the 2003-*10622004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007 tax years, the Board of Assessors, the Board of Assessment Review, and the Assessment Review Commission of the County of Nassau appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered July 10, 2007, as granted that branch of the petitioner’s cross motion which was “to restrain the respondents and their agents from making any direct contact with any owner, tenant or occupant of any real property upon which tax review proceedings are [pending under] the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law without first obtaining written authorization from the attorney of record in such proceeding.”

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the petitioner’s cross motion which was “to restrain the respondents and their agents from making any direct contact with any owner, tenant or occupant of any real property upon which tax review proceedings are [pending under] the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law without first obtaining written authorization from the attorney of record in such proceeding” is denied.

This case is neither a class action nor an action for injunctive relief. The petitioner therefore lacked standing to seek relief beyond the scope of the action to restrain the respondents from making direct contact with nonparties involved in unrelated tax review proceedings, and the court was without authority to grant such relief *(see Matter of Hebel v West,*25 AD3d 172, 175 [2005]; *Matter of Galvani v Nassau County Police Indem. Review Bd.,*242 AD2d 64, 68 [1998]; *see generally Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk,*77 NY2d 761 [1991]).

In light of our determination, the parties’ remaining contentions are academic. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 amended Quarterly Report of First Quantum Ventures, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Periodic Report"), I, Andrew Godfrey, President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





1.
The Periodic  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 this amended Periodic Report fairly presents,
in
all material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and
results of operations of the Company.







Date:
      May 14, 2009
              /s/
      Andrew
      GodfreyAndrew
      GodfreyPresidentChief
      Financial Officer














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


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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 10462-002-New York]

By letter dated April 5, 2001, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P. (Erie) requested an extension of time for the filing of comments in response to the Commission's Notice of Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and Prescriptions issued March 27, 2001, concerning Erie's application for a proposed original license for the Allens Falls Project on the West Branch of the St. Regis River, near the village of Parishville, St. Lawrence County, New York. Erie stated that it had been meeting with the New York Department Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as part of continuing negotiations on major licensing issues pertaining to the project and anticipated a settlement offer on those issues to be achieved by June 2001. Erie stated that the additional time is needed so the parties to the proceedings (particularly the resource agencies) can avoid having to develop and support positions, especially recommendations or mandatory conditions pursuant to Section 10(j) or Section 18 of the Federal Power Act, that may differ from proposals expected to be  arrived at in the settlement offer.

By letter dated April 23, 2001, the Department of the Interior supported Erie's request. By letter dated May 1, 2001, Erie reported it had also obtained verbal agreement  on the extension request from representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the NYSDEC, the Adirondack Mountain Club, New York Rivers United, Trout Unlimited, and American Whitewater.

Upon consideration, notice is hereby given that an extension of time for the filing  of comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions is granted, and they are now due on July 25, 2001.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01-12961  Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.1






CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection
with the Quarterly Report of First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q as of and for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael
R. Sharp, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify 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/
Michael R. Sharp


Michael
R. Sharp


President
and Chief Executive Officer




August
14, 2008
ATLANTIC NAMED STORM SWAPS CONTRACT

Table 1

List of Strike Codes that are In-the-money for each given Atlantic Named Storm Landfall Location

The attached Table 1 correlates Atlantic Named Storm Landfall Locations (by latitude and longitude of landfall) 

with corresponding in-the-money CX Strike Codes for the Atlantic Named Storm Swaps Contract (“ANS” or “ANS 

Contract”). Table 1 will be used to determine the Impacted ZIP Code Area for the purposes of calculating Final 

Settlement of the ANS Contract, as defined in Rule IX-3001(e).

CX Strike Codes generally correspond to the approximately 9500 U.S. Postal Service ZIP Codes whose geographic 

centroids lie within 75 statute miles of a latitude and longitude point that is proximal to the U.S. Atlantic Basin

coastline, which includes the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea, and Gulf of Mexico.

Users of Table 1 should note the following:

 Only latitudes and longitudes listed in Table 1 can be considered Landfall Locations for the purposes of

determining whether a Qualifying Terminating Condition (“QTC”) is considered to be an On-shore QTC or 

an Off-shore QTC. Although rare, a named storm having a landfall at a latitude and longitude point that is 

not listed in Table 1 would be considered to be an Off-shore QTC.

 Certain landfall latitude and longitude points may lie in territories that are not part of the continental 

United States. For example, certain latitude and longitude points listed in Table 1 are located within the 

territorial boundaries of the Dry Tortugas, the Bahamas, and Canada. These points are included because 

their latitude and longitude are within 75 miles of the centroid of a U.S. ZIP Code and therefore are 

considered impactful on those ZIP Codes.

 Notwithstanding that the U.S. Postal Service occasionally adds, deletes or redefines the centroids of ZIP 

Codes, the relationships in Table 1 are static for each calendar year and no changes by the U.S. Postal 

Service made after January 1st of the year in which a Contract is listed will affect the definition of which 

Strike Codes are settled in-the-money for each landfall during that calendar year.

 Several ZIP Codes cover large areas and may not be contiguous. Therefore, when viewing these ZIP Codes 

on a mapping tool, these may appear to lie farther than 75 miles from an Atlantic Basin latitude or 

longitude landfall point. However, in all cases the Exchange has determined that the centroid of the ZIP 

Code lies within 75 miles of at least one such landfall point.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

ANDREW HRISHENKO, 

 Petitioner 

 v. 

LAURA A. COOMBS, 

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 50 WM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.