alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Opinion Filed January 24, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-01291-CV

ESTATE OF ALBERT G. HILL, JR., DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-17-04117-2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Osborne

Opinion by Justice Myers

Before the Court is appellant’s motion to dismiss appeal.1 Pursuant to Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1), we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1).

181291F.P05

 

1

In the motion, appellant states “he reserves the right” to move to reinstate this appeal should a certain circumstance arise. Any such motion 

must be filed in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.

/Lana Myers/

LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ESTATE OF ALBERT G. HILL, JR., 

DECEASED

No. 05-18-01291-CV 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2, 

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-17-04117-2.

Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, 

Justices Molberg and Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER appellees Tyree B. Miller and Margaret Kehiler recover their costs, if any, of 

this appeal from appellant Albert G. Hill, III.

Judgment entered this 24th day of January 2019.
#### John P. Mergler, Respondent, v CSX Transportation, Inc., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[879 NYS2d 741] —

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph G. Makowski, J.), entered October 30, 2007 in a personal injury action. The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages upon a jury verdict.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs *(see generally Karagiannis v New York State Thruway Auth.,*209 AD2d 995 [1994]). Present — Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Fahey and Pine, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Damion Henry, Appellant.

[875 NYS2d 802]—

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kangs County (D’Emic, J.), rendered May 25, 2006, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation, as defense counsel either did not object to them, or raised only a general objection *(see*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Robbins,*48 AD3d 711 [2008]; *People v Salnave,*41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]). In any event, to the extent any remarks were improper, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial *(see People v Robbins,*48 AD3d 711 [2008]; *People v Salnave,*41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Finally, contrary to the defendant’s contention, due process does not require this Court to excise from his sentence the five-year period of postrelease supervision added by the New York State Department of Correctional Services (hereinafter DOCS). The sentence imposed by the court “never included, and [does] not now include, any period of postrelease supervision” *(People v Guare,*45 AD3d 697 [2007]; *see Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler,*298 US 460 [1936]; *People v Thompson,*39 AD3d 572, 573 [2007]; *People v Benson,*38 AD3d 563, 564 [2007]). In that regard, the facts of this case are the same as those present in *People v Faulkner*(55 AD3d 924, 925 [2008]), in that the order *1084of commitment did not mention the imposition of any period of postrelease supervision. DOCS does not have authority to add postrelease supervision to the defendant’s sentence *(see Matter of Garner v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs.,*10 NY3d 358*[2008]).*Rivera, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Chambers, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT

REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our reports dated November 29, 2012 on the consolidated financial statements of Shaw
Communications Inc. as at August 31, 2012 and 2011 and September 1, 2010 and for the two years ended August 31, 2012, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Shaw Communications Inc as of August 31,
2012 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                                  |  |                       |  |     
|--------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----
|Calgary, Canada November 29,
2012 |  |                       |  | LOGO
|                                  |  | Chartered Accountants
#### Christopher JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Julie A. SCHEIBE, Court Reporter, 362nd District Court, Denton County, Texas; Sherri Adelstein, Clerk, Denton County District Court; Jamie Boothe, Deputy Clerk, Denton County District Clerk; Molly Bowers, Court Reporter, 362nd District Court of Denton County, Texas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-40825

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 15, 2008.

Christopher Johnson, Monroe, WA, pro se.

Clame Raney Yancey, Office of the Attorney General, General Litigation Division, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appel-lees.

*380Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Johnson, prisoner # 842458 at the Monroe, Washington, Correctional Center, has been barred from proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) because, on at least three prior occasions while incarcerated, he has brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. *See Johnson v. Rogers,*209 Fed.Appx. 424 (5th Cir.2006). This appeal was therefore improvidently docketed as if Johnson were proceeding IFP on appeal.

Accordingly, Johnson’s IFP status is de-certified, and the appeal is dismissed. Johnson has 15 days from the date of this opinion to pay the full appellate filing fee to the clerk of the district court, should he wish to reinstate his appeal.

IFP DECERTIFIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-17-0000411 11-JAN-2019 12:15 PM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           1,067
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,507
<ALLOWANCES>                                       795
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,533
<PP&E>                                           7,371
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,497
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,314
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,212
<SALES>                                         13,770
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,770
<CGS>                                            7,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,369
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,551
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 101
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,853)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        50
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,903)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.94)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.94)
        

</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 20, 2018.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 20, 2018

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A18A1891. TAMARA BELL v. MENTAL HEALTH GEORGIA CORPORATION et al..

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ysrael MUSTAFA-BERNABE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-20119

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 22, 2010.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

James M. Sims, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JOLLY, STEWART, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ys-rael Mustafa-Bernabe has moved for leave to withdraw and has fried a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Mustafa-Bernabe has not filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 3 (Thursday, January 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-146]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

December 15, 2000.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 5, 
2001 to be assured of consideration.

Financial Management Service (FMS)

    OMB Number: 1510-0007.
    Form Number: Standard Form 1199A.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement.
    Title: Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form.
    Description: The Direct Deposit Sign-Up Form is used by recipients 
to authorize the deposit of Federal payments into their accounts at a 
financial institution. This information is used to route the Direct 
Deposit payment to the correct account at the correct financial 
institution. It identifies persons who have executed the form.
    Respondents: Individuals or households, Business or other for-
profit, Federal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 604,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Other (one-time).
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 102,680 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Juanita Holder, Financial Management Service, 
3700 East West Highway, Room 144, PGP II, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.

Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-146 Filed 1-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-P
Exhibit 23.3



CONSENT OF HEMPSTEAD & CO. INCORPORATED



We consent to the use and filing as an exhibit in this Form 10-K and Annual Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2004 of Voxware, Inc. (the Company), of our
identity and the results of our report dated February 16, 2004 used to determine the fair value of the guarantee made by certain stockholders of the Company in connection with the Companys credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank, referred to
in the Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004.



|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Hempstead & Co. Inc.                                           
|Hempstead & Co. Incorporated Haddonfield, New Jersey August 6, 2004
|                                                                   
|/s/ J. Mark Penny, Managing Director                               
|J. Mark Penny
FILED IN5th COURT OF APPEALS        DALLAS, TEXAS11/9/2015 11:32:35 AM            LISA MATZ                Clerk

- NOTICE
- RTA
- JMT
- MNT
[logo]

2nd Request

Urgent Proxy Information

**Please cast your vote now!**

Dear Shareholder:

A few weeks ago we mailed you proxy information to enable you to vote on important proposals that affect the funds and yourinvestment. This information describes each proposal and asks for your vote on these important issues. It has been called to ourattention that we have not yet received your ballot.

**Your vote is important, no matter how large or small your holdings may be.**

I am writing to remind you that your participation is extremely important. The Special Meeting of Shareholders scheduled forFebruary 14, 2001 cannot be held until we receive a majority of the votes. If you do not plan to cast your vote at the meeting onFebruary 14, please indicate your vote on the enclosed proxy card(s). Shareholders who hold more than one account in the fundwill receive a separate card for each account and should vote each card.

**Voting is quick and easy. Everything you need is enclosed.**

*To Vote By Mail*

Please mail your**signed** proxy card(s) in the postage-paid envelope.

*To Vote By Fax*

Please fax the front and back of your **signed** proxy card(s) to our proxy tabulator at

1-888-451-8683.

*To Vote By Phone*

Please call the toll-free number printed on your proxy card(s) and follow the recorded instructions.

If you have already voted, thank you for your response. If you have any further questions, please call Fidelity at1-800-544-3198. We appreciate your immediate attention. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Edward C. Johnson 3d

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
H. Res. 1313 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 2, 2010. 

Whereas, in May 1985, the National Child Advocacy Center 

opened its doors in Huntsville, Alabama; 

Whereas there are now more than 900 Child Advocacy Centers in the United States, all based off of the first one 

in Huntsville, Alabama; 

Whereas, in 2009, child advocacy centers served more than 

260,000 children; 

Whereas services are offered to children who are physically 

and sexually abused entirely for free to the family; 

Whereas child advocacy centers work to streamline the investigation process so that the child may be helped most effectively; 

Whereas this is done through a multidisciplinary team managing alleged cases of abuse from the initial investigation 

all the way through prosecution; 

Whereas, during this time, child advocacy centers offer medical, therapeutic, and other support services to victim’s 

and victim’s families; 

Whereas 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be sexually abused 

before the age of 18; 
2 

•HRES 1313 EH 

Whereas child advocacy centers also reach out to the community and sponsor programs that help bring awareness to 

this problem; 

Whereas education and support for communities has proven 

to be successful in preventing abuse from occurring; 

Whereas the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services sponsored the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Report to Congress which found that from 1993 to 2006 there was a 

44 percent decrease in the rate of sexual abuse; and 

Whereas May would be an appropriate month to designate as 

‘‘Child Advocacy Center Month’’: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) supports the designation of ‘‘Child Advocacy 

Center Month’’; and 

(2) commends the National Child Advocacy Center 

in Huntsville, Alabama, on their 25th anniversary. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
EXHIBIT 10.5

                          ASSET SETTLEMENT GROUP, INC.
                               2015 A Osborne Road
                            St. Marys, Georgia 31558

                                                                   July 31, 2005

Capital Benefits, LLC
2015 A Osborne Road
St. Marys, Georgia 31558

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This letter  shall serve to confirm and  memorialize  our  agreement  that
Capital  Benefits,  LLC (the "Fund") shall provide to us proceeds  received from
the  public  offer and sale of units of  membership  interest  in the Fund.  The
proceeds shall be derived pursuant to the Fund's registration  statement on Form
S-1 (the  "Registration  Statement"),  for the sole purpose of  purchasing  life
insurance policies (the "Policies") as set forth in the Registration  Statement.
The  signature  of such  Registration  Statement  by the Fund  shall  constitute
conclusive  evidence of the Fund's agreement to provide the funds, and we hereby
agree to use such  proceeds to purchase the Policies,  either  directly from the
insured,  if licensed as a broker,  or through an  unaffiliated  broker referral
network. We further agree that we shall sell and transfer to the Fund all of our
right,  title and  interest to the Policies  purchased  with such  proceeds,  in
accordance  with and  subject to any  agreements  now or  hereinafter  in effect
either  between us and the Fund or between  us and any  insured or  unaffiliated
broker.

      In accordance with the disclosures made in the Registration  Statement, we
understand  that:  (a) the Fund is under no  obligation to purchase any Policies
from us and may purchase policies from any other  non-affiliated  provider,  and
(b) we may sell the Policies we purchase to  non-affiliates  (one such agreement
is already signed) and affiliated  companies not engaged in a public offering of
securities, but that have similar objectives of the Fund.

      If the foregoing  accurately  reflects our  agreement  with respect to the
foregoing,  please  indicate  such by  signing in the space  indicated  for such
below.

                                               Very truly yours,

                                               Asset Settlement Group, Inc.

                                               By: /s/ Brittany Ellis
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                       Brittany Ellis, President

Acknowledged and accepted
as of the date first set forth above:

Capital Benefits, LLC

By:  AmeriFirst Financial Services, Inc., Manager

By: /s/ Brittany Ellis
    -----------------------------
        Brittany Ellis, President
EXHIBIT 32.2

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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Voxware, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Paul Commons, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 results of operations of the Company.

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

|                           | /s/ Paul Commons        | 
|-------------------------- | ----------------------- | 
|Dated:  September 25, 2007 | Paul Commons           
|                           | Chief Financial Officer



---
No. 414.

#### Austin *v.*Thomas, Receiver.

October 21, 1935.

*Mr. William 8. McDowell*for petitioner.

*Mr. Robert S. Marx*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
#### Raymond C. FOSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE; Redding Police Department; Todd Rowen, Officer; Fort Mill Police Department; Charles Robinson, Lieutenant; Wilkins, Officer; Lucas, Sergeant; Irvin; L. Dan Malphrus, Jr., Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-16129.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.

Filed Aug. 21, 2013.

Raymond C. Foss, pro se.

Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Raymond Foss appeals the district court’s dismissal of his claims at the screening stage under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, for failure to state a claim. We must determine whether Foss’s complaint, “taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, [ ] contains enough facts to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” *Hebbe v. Pliler,*627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. *746662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1987, 178 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009)). Because Foss was pro se before the district court, we “construe the pleadings liberally and [] afford the [plaintiff] the benefit of any doubt.” *Id.*at 342.

1. Although Foss admits that he signed a waiver of extradition, he claims that the waiver was not “knowing and voluntary” and therefore invalid. *Moran v. Burbine,*475 U.S. 412, 421, 106 S.Ct. 1135, 89 L.Ed.2d 410 (1986). Even assuming that the waiver was invalid, Foss cannot state a claim for relief against any defendants for actions taken after he signed it, as the waiver was facially valid. *Mills v. Graves,*930 F.2d 729, 732 (9th Cir.1991); *see also Anderson v. Creighton,*483 U.S. 635, 641, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987).

2. Foss also appeals the dismissal of claims against Officer Rowen, the California officer who requested his detention, and Lieutenant Robinson the South Carolina officer who obtained the fugitive arrest warrant. He cannot state a plausible claim for relief, however, because it is undisputed that the California warrant had been issued before Rowen contacted Robinson. Both California and South Carolina law permit an officer to request the arrest of a fugitive on the basis of an outstanding arrest warrant and before the issuance of a formal extradition demand. Cal. Pen. Code § 1551.1; S.C.Code § 17-9-10. Robinson listed the California arrest warrant number in the affidavit and conducted an NCIC check earlier that day. The warrant number alone would likely establish probable cause for a fugitive arrest warrant. The NCIC check would also have been sufficient to obtain a fugitive arrest warrant. *Case v. Kitsap Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t,*249 F.3d 921, 928 (9th Cir. 2001).

AFFIRMED.

*

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