alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued November 21 , 2012

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

NO . 01
- 12
- 0 0 937
- CV

____________ DAVID BAILEY , Appellant

V. TANISHA GOLDEN , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Ca u se No. CI045715

MEMORANDUM O PINION Appellant David Bailey attempt s to appeal from the trial court’ s judgment signed April 12 , 2012

. Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is signed

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1

. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended2

to 90 days after the date the judgment is signed if any party timely files a motion for new trial , motion to modify the judgment, motion to reinstate, or, under certain circumstances, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 26.1(a). To be considered timely, a motion for new trial must be filed within 30 days after the judgment is signed. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a).
T he record reflects that the trial court signed the judgment on April 12 , 2012

. The recor d shows that appell ant did not file a motion for new trial or anything else that extended the deadline to file the notice of appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1(a). Thus, the deadline to file the notice of appeal was May 12, 2012. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 19, 2012. Appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25.1.
On October 24, 2012 , we notified appellant that this appeal was subjec t to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless, by November 5, 2012 , he filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a). Appellant responded, asserting that the trial court clerk failed to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a( 3 ) and that he never received notice of the April 12, 2012 judgment from the trial court

.3

Failu re of the trial court clerk to comply with Rule 306 a will not affect the periods of time running from the signing of the judgment, unless a party follow s the procedures of Rule 306a( 4 ) to modify the periods within ninety days of the date the judgment is signed

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 306a( 3 )

. Appellant did not fol low the procedures of Rule 306a( 4 ) within ninety days of the date the judgment w as signed

. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 306a(4)

. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.
P ER CURI A M Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Massengale, and Brown

.
#### In the Matter of Afortunado S., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 807]

— Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Monica Drinane, J.), entered on or about August 5, 2008, which adjudicated appel*555lant a juvenile delinquent, upon a fact-finding determination that he committed acts, which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree and obstructing governmental administration, and placed him with the Office of Children and Family Services for a period of 18 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s finding was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the court’s determinations concerning identification and credibility *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The evidence included the victim’s identification of appellant and the recovery of the victim’s property from appellant immediately after the crime. We have considered and rejected appellant’s remaining claims, including those relating to the obstructing governmental administration charge. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Gonzalez, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
---

Exhibit 32.2

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

I, Vanleo Y.W. Fung, 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 Swav Enterprises
      Ltd. for the period ended September 30, 2008 (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 Swav Enterprises Ltd..                                                                    

Date: November 13, 2008

| | /s/ Vanleo Y.W. Fung       
| | ---------------------------
| | Vanleo Y.W. Fung           
| | Chief Financial Officer    
| | Principal Financial 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 Swav Enterprises
Ltd. and will be retained by Swav Enterprises Ltd. 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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board 

          - [Order No. 1170] 

Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order: 

Whereas, the Foreign Trade Zone of Southeast Texas, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 115, submitted an application to the Board for authority to expand FTZ 115 to include a site at the Sun Pipe Line Company crude oil petroleum terminal (Site 8) in Nederland, Texas (including certain areas previously authorized as Subzone 116B), within the U.S. Customs Service consolidated port of Port Arthur and Sabine (FTZ Docket 67-2000; filed 11/29/00 and amended on 2/7/01). 

                    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the                     **Federal Register**                     (65 F.R. 77560, 12/12/00, and as amended, 66 F.R. 10010, 2/13/01), the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,                 

Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the public interest; 

Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders: 

The application to expand FTZ 115 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28. 

      ( print page 31613)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of May 2001. 

Faryar Shirzad, 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board. 

Attest: 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-14799 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Federal Register: February 24, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 9130]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24fe99-42]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, March 29, 1999.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 99-4746 Filed 2-22-99; 3:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
```

----

**======== RETURN    TO INDEX ========**

----
EXHIBIT 32.2





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 ImmunoBiotics, Inc. (the "Registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Vithal J. Rajadhyaksha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 Registrant.





/s/ Vithal J. RajadhyakshaVithal J. Rajadhyaksha

Chief Financial Officer





November 22, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 31626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14710]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF01-2021-000]


Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of 
Filing

June 6, 2001.
    Take notice that on May 30, 2001, the Bonneville Power 
Administration (Bonneville) filed an amendment to its December 14, 2000 
filing of its proposed 2002 Transmission and Ancillary Services (2002 
Transmission) rates with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before June 14, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14710 Filed 6-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4046-4047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1470]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Sunshine Act; Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and 
Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of 
January 15, 2001.
    A closed meeting will be held on Thursday, January 18, 2001, at 
11:00 a.m.

[[Page 4047]]

    Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, determined that no earlier 
notice thereof was possible.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the 
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. 
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be 
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has 
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth 
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), 
(8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at 
the closed meeting.
    The subject matters of the closed meeting will be:
    <bullet> Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and
    <bullet> Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings 
of an enforcement nature.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact: the Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-1470 Filed 1-12-01; 11:38 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### Pedro Alejandro GONZALEZ-MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-74315.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*689Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 12, 2008.

Pedro Alejandro Gonzalez-Morales, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Maria Isabel Oroeio Gonzalez, San Jose, CA, pro se.

Samia Naseem, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Pedro Alejandro Gonzalez-Morales, and Maria Isabel Oroeio Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s order denying then-application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioners have failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relatives. *See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*827 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners’ contention that the IJ and the BIA failed to adequately consider and weigh all the evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. *See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales,*424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1460 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1460

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          July 1, 2010.
Whereas bees, birds, butterflies, and other pollinators are vital to sustaining 
        a healthy ecosystem;
Whereas pollinators are responsible for an estimated 1 out of every 3 bites of 
        food that we eat;
Whereas diversity of pollinators is necessary for diversity of plant life and 
        the security of our food supply;
Whereas a decline in pollinators would adversely impact animal species that eat 
        pollinating plants;
Whereas colony collapse disorder has caused an alarming decline in the 
        population of honey bees, one of the most important pollinators;
Whereas the United States Senate designated the last week of June as National 
        Pollinator Week in 2006; and
Whereas the majority of States have recognized June 21-27, 2010, as National 
        Pollinator Week: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the importance of pollinators in agriculture and in 
        maintaining our diverse ecosystem; and
            (2) supports the goals and ideals of National Pollinator Week.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION, CHARLES W. METCALF, DANIEL F. RICE AND COMPANY, 

DANIEL F. RICE, LAWRENCE J. RYAN, AND PHILIP R. O'BRIEN 

CITATION: 6 Agric. Dec. 417 

DOCKET NUMBER: 34 

DATE: MAY 16, 1947 

DOCUMENT TYPE: NOTICE OF STAY 

(A. D. 1484) 

 

In re GENERAL FOODS CORPORATION et al. CEA Doc. No. 34. Decided May 16, 1947. 

Notice of Stay by Circuit Court of Appeals

Notice of stay and suspension of order entered on April 28, 1947, is given on 

behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Judicial Officer, pursuant to the 

Direction of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

contained in its order of May 8, 1947, in a suit instituted on the petition of 

General Foods Corporation. 

 

Decision by Thomas J. Flavin, Judicial Officer

Notice of Stay by Circuit Court of Appeals

Notice is hereby given that the order entered on April 28, 1947, * in the 

proceeding before the Secretary of Agriculture, styled In re General Foods 

Corporation et al., Respondents, CEA Docket No. 34, has been stayed and 

suspended as to General Foods Corporation by an order entered by the United 

States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on May 8, 1947, in a 

suit instituted on the petition of General Foods Corporation. The Court's order 

in this respect reads in part as follows: 

"7. Pending the final disposition of this cause by this court, the said order 

of the Secretary of Agriculture and said Judicial Officer, entered April 28, 

1947 * (over the signature of said Judicial Officer) and its enforcement shall 

be stayed pending the final disposition of this cause and until the further 

order of this court, * * *." 

This notice is given on behalf of the Secretary of Agriculture and myself, as 

Judicial Officer, pursuant to the direction of the Court contained in its order 

of May 8, 1947. 

 

LOAD-DATE: March 12, 2008 
Page 2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael SCHLUSSEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-3315-cr.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

July 7, 2010.

*88Michael Hurwitz, Hurwitz Stampur & Roth, New York, NY, for Appellant.

Julian J. Moore (Preet Bharara, United States Attorney, and Michael A. Levy and William J. Harrington, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY, for Appellee.

PRESENT: ROGER J. MINER, JOSÉ A. CABRANES and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Following trial in the District Court, a jury found defendant-appellant Michael Schlussel guilty of one count of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, *id.*§ 1349. The Court sentenced him principally to 108 months’ imprisonment and restitution of $646,750.

Schlussel brings this appeal arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient for the jury to find him guilty on the conspiracy count. He also claims that in calculating his advisory sentencing range under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.), the District Court erroneously applied two enhancements: a four-level role enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and a two-level enhancement for use of sophisticated means under § 2Bl.l(b)(9).

With respect to the conspiracy count, after reviewing the trial record and “crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor,” *United States v. Chavez,*549 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2008), we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to reach a guilty verdict.

With respect to the sentence, we detect no error in the District Court’s calculation of Schlussel’s advisory Guidelines range. *See United States v. Cavera,*550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir.2008) (en banc). The record adequately supports the District Court’s application of enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 and § 2Bl.l(b)(9), and the Court’s findings in applying those enhancements were “sufficiently specific to permit meaningful appellate review.” *United States v. Ware,*577 F.3d 442, 452 (2d Cir.2009).

We have considered all of Schlussel’s arguments on appeal and have determined that they are meritless.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the July 30, 2009 judgment of conviction is AFFIRMED.
CONSENT OF
                         RALPH E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.


         We hereby consent to the use of the name "Ralph E. Davis Associates,
Inc" and the reference to Ralph E. Davis Associates, Inc., and the inclusion of
and references to our report, or information contained therein, dated January
30, 2006, prepared for Cadence Resources Corporation in the Form 10-KSB for the
filing dated on or about March 31, 2006.

Houston, Texas
March 31, 2006

                                           RALPH E. DAVIS ASSOCIATES, INC.


                                           /s/ Joseph Mustacchia, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Joseph Mustacchia, Jr.
                                           Executive Vice-President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY J. CRAWFORD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 601 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 4th day of May, 2021

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-30331 

01-NOV-2011 

08:25 AM 

NO. SCWC-30331
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

KIM R. MASSEY, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant,
 

vs.
 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(ICA NO. 30331; CR. NO. 06-1-2105)
 

ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Kim R. Massey’s
 

application for writ of certiorari, filed on September 27, 2011,
 

was filed more than ninety days after the filing of the ICA’s
 

June 27, 2011 judgment on appeal. The application is untimely
 

and thus, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction. See HRS §
 

602-59(c) (Supp. 2010); HRAP Rule 40.1(a). Therefore,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for writ of
 

certiorari is dismissed.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 1, 2011. 

Barry L. Sooalo,

on the application for

petitioner/defendantappellant.
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama


/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna