alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 01

- 14

- 00881

- CV

IN THE

F IRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

EMERITA MEDINA ET AL, Appellants

v.

GLORIA RAVEN, Appelle e

ON Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1025647

Appellants Motion for Extension of Time To File Brief

James O. Okorafor

Attorney for Appellants

State Bar No. 15241710

10101 Fondren Rd. Suite 260

Houston, Texas 77096

1 ACCEPTED

01-14-00881-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

3/18/2015 2:43:01 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKTO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES:

Appellant s respectfully ask the Court to extend the time for the filing

of their brief for the inclusive reasons below:

1. On February 11, 2015 the Court Clerk sent notice indicating that the

Reporter’s Record had been filed and that Appellants’ brief was due 30

da ys thereafter, if the record was not to be supplemented.

2. Appellants are in the process of determining whether to file with the

County Court Clerk a Request For Supplemental Record in reliance on

TRAP 34.5 (c). It also appears that the Reporters record may be

incomplete and require supplementation, unless the parties and counsels

agree to rely on the Reporter’s Record as presently filed

.

3. The Court may grant an extension of time under TRAP Rule 10. To the

ext ent required by the applicable rules, Appellants concurrently

respectfully request permission for the “late filing” of this motion.

4 . Appellants respectfully request an extension of time of not more than

sixty (60) days to allow the Post Trial Clerks of the Harris County Clerk’s

office to prepare and to file the Supplemental Records as may be

requested and to allow Appellants time to arrange for a Supplemental

Reporter’s record and \ or solicit stipulations regarding the “adequacy” of the

Reporter’s R eco rd on file for purposes of this appeal and to file t heir brief.

5 . No previous extension either has been requested by Appellants or

granted by the Court which respect to the briefing time table.

6

. Appellants respectfully pray that the Court grant this motion and extend

the time for filing their brief by an additional sixty (60) days.

2Respectfully Submitted:

/

s

/ J a m e s O

. O k o r a f

o r

James O. Okorafor

SBOT # 15241710

10101 Fondren, Suite 260

Houston, Texas 77096

TEL No: (713) 839

- 9700; email: laws@joolaws.com

Attorney for Appellants { Medina et al}

.

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

This will certify that the foregoing Motion complied with the length requirements

of Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i). The foregoing document is 294 words long

.

/

s

/ J a m e s O

. O k o r a f

o r

James O. Okorafor.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that this document was served on Appellees ’ counsel of record via the

Electronic Case Manager on March 1 8 , 2015

.

/

s

/ J a m e s O

. O k o r a f

o r

James O. Okorafor.

3
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1513 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1513

  Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 142nd 
                                season.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2010

 Mr. Murphy of New York submitted the following resolution; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Congratulating the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates its 142nd 
                                season.

Whereas, July 23, 2010, marks the start of the Saratoga Race Course's 142nd 
        season;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest continuously operating 
        thoroughbred race track in the United States;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course is the oldest organized sporting venue in the 
        United States;
Whereas 2010 marks the 141st running of the Travers Stakes, the oldest major 
        thoroughbred race in the United States;
Whereas horseracing enjoys a rich history whose traditions are beloved 
        throughout the world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes an average of nearly 30,000 visitors 
        per day throughout its race season and 1,000,000 visitors annually, 
        tripling the population of Saratoga Springs each summer;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course welcomes the best thoroughbreds from across the 
        United States and from around the world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has a total economic impact of approximately 
        $200,000,000 throughout Saratoga County and the surrounding communities;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course contributes more than 2,500 jobs to Saratoga 
        Springs and the surrounding area as well as nearly 17,000 jobs in 
        related fields;
Whereas Saratoga Springs is a top destination for tourists from around the 
        world;
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has been able to maintain its Victorian charm 
        and original traditions; and
Whereas the Saratoga Race Course has been recognized by Sports Illustrated 
        Magazine as one of the world's greatest sporting venues and has 
        contributed to the town of Saratoga receiving the first ``Great American 
        Place'' Award from American Heritage Magazine: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) congratulates the Saratoga Race Course as it celebrates 
        its 142nd season;
            (2) encourages all people in the United States to spend an 
        electrifying day at the races; and
            (3) recognizes the Saratoga Race Course's important place 
        in horseracing history.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

JOINDER AGREEMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT 

Dated: May 18, 2016 
 Reference
is hereby made to the Exchange and Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of November 20, 2015 (the “Registration Rights Agreement”), by and between CCOH Safari, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Escrow
Issuer”), and the Representatives. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms defined in the Registration Rights Agreement and used herein shall have the meanings given them in the Registration Rights Agreement. 

1. Joinder of the Issuers. CCO Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), and CCO Holdings
Capital Corp., a Delaware corporation (“CCOH Capital” and, together with the Company, the “Issuers”), each hereby agrees to become bound by the terms, conditions, representations and warranties, covenants and other
provisions of the Registration Rights Agreement with all attendant rights, duties and obligations stated therein, with the same force and effect as if originally named as an “Issuer” therein and as if the Company and CCOH Capital executed
the Registration Rights Agreement on the date thereof. 
 2. Governing Law. THIS JOINDER AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND
CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. 
 3. Counterparts. This agreement may be executed in any number
of counterparts and by the parties hereto in separate counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. Delivery of an executed
counterpart of a signature page to this Joinder Agreement by facsimile, email or other electronic transmission (i.e., “pdf”) shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Joinder Agreement. 

4. Amendments. No amendment or waiver of any provision of this Joinder Agreement, nor any consent or approval to any departure
therefrom, shall in any event be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto. 
 5.
Headings. The headings in this Joinder Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect the meaning hereof. 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 







 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding of our agreement, please indicate your
acceptance of this Joinder Agreement by signing in the space provided below, whereupon this Joinder Agreement and the Registration Rights Agreement will become binding agreements of the Issuers in accordance with their terms. 

 

					
	CCO HOLDINGS, LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel J. Bollinger

		 	Name:	 	Daniel J. Bollinger
		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary
	
	CCO HOLDINGS CAPITAL CORP.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Daniel J. Bollinger

		 	Name:	 	Daniel J. Bollinger
		 	Title:	 	Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Assistant Corporate Secretary


 [Signature Page to Registration Rights Agreement Joinder]
IV 

★

House Calendar No. 244 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1721 

[Report No. 111–657] 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 

1722) to require the head of each executive agency to establish and 

implement a policy under which employees shall be authorized to 

telework, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of 

motions to suspend the rules. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Mr. ARCURI, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; 

which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment 

to the bill (H.R. 1722) to require the head of each 

executive agency to establish and implement a policy 

under which employees shall be authorized to telework, 

and for other purposes, and providing for consideration 

of motions to suspend the rules. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill 

3 (H.R. 1722) to require the head of each executive agency 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HRES 1721 RH1S 

1 to establish and implement a policy under which employees 

2 shall be authorized to telework, and for other purposes, 

3 with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in 

4 the House, without intervention of any point of order ex5 cept those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI, a motion 

6 offered by the chair of the Committee on Oversight and 

7 Government Reform or his designee that the House concur 

8 in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall 

9 be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for 

10 one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and 

11 ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight 

12 and Government Reform. The previous question shall be 

13 considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption with14 out intervening motion. 

15 SEC. 2. It shall be in order at any time through the 

16 legislative day of November 19, 2010, for the Speaker to 

17 entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 

18 Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority 

19 Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter 

20 for consideration pursuant to this section. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
House Calendar No. 244 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 1721 

[Report No. 111–657] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the Senate 

to suspend the rules. poses, and providing for consideration of motions be authorized to telework, and for other purimplement a policy under which employees shall head of each executive agency to establish and amendment to the bill (H.R. 1722) to require the 

NOVEMBER 17, 2010 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
Anthony L. WILLIAMS, petitioner, v. Thomas E. PEREZ, Secretary of Labor.

No. 15-1374.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          19,195
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  153,358
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,156
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               192,021
<PP&E>                                         163,882
<DEPRECIATION>                                  92,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 904,925
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          179,582
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           213
<OTHER-SE>                                     208,063
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   904,925
<SALES>                                        578,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               578,803
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  547,019
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,670
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,198
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,497
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,497
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26


</TABLE>
#### HABICHT, BRAUN & CO. v. UNITED STATES.

(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.

May 4, 1909.)

No. 5,190.

1. Customs Duties (§ 78*) — Abandonment—Goods Destroyed Before Importation.

Where portions of an importation were so damaged by sea water on the voyage as to be entirely valueless, there was nothing left to abandon, under the provisions of Customs Administrative Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, § 23, 26 Stat. 140 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1930).

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 78.*]

2. Customs Duties (§ 78*) — Bond for Return of Unexamined Packages— N ONIMPORTATION.

Breach of a bond given under section 2899, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3921), for the return of goods not examined by customs officials, does not affect the right of the importer to an allowance for damaged merchandise. No other or different penalty is contemplated by the bond or by said section than the damages provided by the bond.

[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Customs Duties, Dec. Dig. § 78.*]

On Application for Review of a Decision by the Board of United States' General Appraisers.

The decision below, reported as G. A. 6,700 (T. D. 28,651), affirmed the assessment of duty by the collector of customs at the port of New York.

McLaughlin, Russell, Coe & Sprague (Edward P. Sharretts, of counsel), for importers.

D. Frank Lloyd, Asst. U. S. Atty.

*

For otter cases see same topic *&*§ number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The importation was of glacé fruit. The Board finds that there were 29, cases, and 59 boxes out of other cases, which were so damaged by sea water on the voyage as to be entirely valueless. These cases and boxes were condemned by the health officers and destroyed. The testimony sustains this finding. Upon this state of facts there was nothing left to “abandon” under section 23 of the customs administrative act (Act June 10, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 140 |U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1930]). The case is on all fours with Lawder v. Stone, 187 U. S. 281, 23 Sup. Ct. 79, 47 L. Ed. 178, where it was held that importations which have been so damaged on the voyage of importation as to be entirely worthless should be treated as if no importation of them had been made. No duty should be assessed upon them. I do not see how this rule can be affected by the circumstance that, as to the cases in question, there has been some breach of the bond given under section 2899, Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1921), assuming that there were such a breach. The bond itself provides what shall he the damages recoverable when a breach is proved (United States v. Dieckerhoff [C. C.] 103 Fed. 789); and no other or different penalty is contemplated by the bond or by the section under which it is, exacted.

*442The decision of the Board of General Appraisers and of the collector is reversed, and cause remanded, with instructions to remit the duty on the worthless cases and boxes.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30095

Conference Calendar

 

VIRGIL A. HARRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

REBECCA DOHERTY, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE;

WILLIE LEDET; MR. RUSHEN,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CV-2221

- - - - - - - - - -

August 18, 1997

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Virgil A. Harris, federal prisoner #08940-035, appeals from

the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights suit pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). He argues that his due process rights

were violated because he was forced to sign a legal document

before his admission to a halfway house as a special condition of

his supervised release. We have reviewed the record and find no
No. 

-2-

reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134000 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134000 

 COA: 267261 
 Wayne CC: 05-009294-01

GUY ALLEN SALLIS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 17, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
# Exhibit 32

Certifications
of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

---

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of New Commerce BanCorp (the Company),
each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:

| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
          with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (the
          Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

|Date:  March 25, 2004 |  | By:   /s/  Frank W. Wingate          
|--------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      |  | Frank W. Wingate                     
|                      |  | President and Chief Executive Officer

|Date:  March 25, 2004 |  | By:   /s/  R. Lamar Simpson
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                      |  | R. Lamar Simpson           
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer
Covarsia DILL, petitioner, v. William MUNIZ, Warden.

No. 16-6229.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Aretha D. BROWN, petitioner, v. James E. WILLIAMS.

No. 16-6560.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARQUAN M. TATE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-1331

[July 23, 2020]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Charles A. Schwab, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562006CF001401A.

Marquan M. Tate, Carrabelle, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.