alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00308- CV
R. G . A., Appellant
v. The University of T exas School of Law , Dom estic V iolence Clinic for M. B., Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 353 RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -F M- 04- 0027 10, H ONO RAB LE TIM SULAK , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant R.G.A. filed a notice of appea l on May 6, 2013. On J une 26, 2013, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter notify ing R.G.A. that the cler k’s rec ord was overdue and reque sting that R.G.A. make pay ment arr ang ements for the cler k’s rec ord and submit a status repor t reg arding this appea l. The overdue -re cord notice also informed R.G.A
. t h at failure to make pay ment arr ang ements or respond to the Court’s notice by J uly 8, 2013 could subject this appea l to dismiss al for w ant of prose cution.

To date, the cler

k’s re cord in this cause has not be en filed a nd the district cler

k has not rec eived any pay

ment. Acc ording ly , we dismiss this a ppeal for want of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c)
.__________________________________________ J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Aug ust 7, 2013

2
Jose Ramon PULIDO-NOLAZCO, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-6120.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 29, 2018.

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         595,177
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  3,218,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (260,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    2,009,071
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5,843,781
<PP&E>                                         5,824,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (997,889)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,941,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,174,249
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,827
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,436,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,941,370
<SALES>                                        6,314,064
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               6,314,064
<CGS>                                          3,795,681
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  3,795,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,172,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             190,968
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,045
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            155,045
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   155,045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.06
        


</TABLE>
Juan Antonio HUNTER, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-9085.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 3, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 111



## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III No. CV-15-712

FREDERICK LEE PITCHFORD APPELLANT V. NANCY E. WRIGHT, AS ATTORNEY IN FACT FOR ALICIA CHRISTINE EDGIN APPELLEE Opinion Delivered February 17, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-14-350] HONORABLE MELISSA BRISTOW RICHARDSON, JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge Appellant Frederick Lee Pitchford, pro se, appeals the trial court’s May 28, 2015 order, which denied appellant’s recusal motion, denied appellant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and granted appellee’s motion for protective order to prevent Alicia Christine Edgin from testifying in this matter due to a finding that Edgin is not a competent witness. Appellant argues that the trial court erred and should be reversed. We dismiss because appellant has failed to appeal from a final order. Subject to a few exceptions not applicable in this case, Rule 2(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that this court only has jurisdiction to review cases where a final order has been entered. 1 Whether an order is final and appealable is a matter

1 Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a).Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 111

going to our jurisdiction; jurisdiction is an issue that we are obligated to raise on our own motion. 2 An order is final if it dismisses the parties from the court, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject matter in controversy. 3 The order must put the judge’s directive into execution, ending the litigation, or a separable branch of it. 4 We have held that the denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final order, as the only matter disposed of by the order is that the case should proceed to trial. 5 Additionally, Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2 does not authorize an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to
recuse. 6 Thus, appellant’s first two points of appeal are not properly before us because they are not from a final order. In granting appellee’s motion for a protective order, the court noted that appellant could retain a medical doctor to conduct an examination of Edgin and offer the court another opinion on Edgin’s competency as a witness for further consideration. The court gave appellant until the final hearing to secure this opinion and present it to the court. The language of the order clearly contemplates further action by appellant and the court

2 Dobbs v. Dobbs , 99 Ark. App. 156, 258 S.W.3d 414 (2007).
3 Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. J.N. , 96 Ark. App. 319, 241 S.W.3d 293 (2006).
4 Id

. 5 Evins v. Carvin , 2013 Ark. App. 185, 426 S.W.3d 549 (citing Plunk v. State , 2012 Ark. 362).

6 Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 v. Wagner, 357 Ark. 20, 159 S.W.3d 285 (2004). 2Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 111

concerning Edgin’s competency as a witness. As such, the order was not final as to the protective order. 7 Therefore, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order. Appeal dismissed. V AUGHT and H OOFMAN , JJ., agree. Frederick Lee Pitchford , pro se appellant. No response.

7 See Yarbrough v. Powell , 2015 Ark. App. 218, 459 S.W.3d 329. 3
Jose Luis CEPEDA-CORTES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-421.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 5, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
s<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In connection with the Annual Report of Aquatic Cellulose International
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10KSB for the period ending May 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Sheridan Westgarde Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of the undersigned's knowledge and
belief:

        (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 result of
                operations of the Company.


                                                /s/ Sheridan Westgarde
                                                -----------------------------
                                                Sheridan Westgarde
                                                Chief Executive Officer,
                                                September 29, 2004
Exhibit 99



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT



Board of Directors and Stockholders
WVS Financial Corporation

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of WVS Financial
Corporation and subsidiary as of September 30, 2001, and the related
consolidated statement of income for the three-month periods ended September 30,
2001 and 2000, the consolidated statement of changes in stockholders' equity for
the three-month period ended September 30, 2001, and the statement of cash flows
for the three-month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000. These financial
statements are the responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the
objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial
statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards, generally
accepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of
June 30, 2001, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented
herein); and in our report dated July 20, 2001 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.


/s/ S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.
------------------------
S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.

Wexford, PA
November 9, 2001
FIRST SOLAR, INC., et al., petitioners, v. MINEWORKERS' PENSION SCHEME, et al.

No. 18-164.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000910678
<NAME> PINNACLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       7,003,939
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,830,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            91,609,735
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    144,974,201
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,204,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             258,480,028
<DEPOSITS>                                 215,066,555
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          3,141,714
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,680,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,591,759
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             258,480,028
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,179,187
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            4,338,027
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,517,215
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,957,606
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,958,262
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,558,952
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  225,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              25,568
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              5,660,517
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,472,307
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   3,785,053
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,785,053
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.93
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     8.4
<LOANS-NON>                                    162,215
<LOANS-PAST>                                   588,995
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               197,929
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,277,007
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,035,015
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  179,420
<RECOVERIES>                                   123,942
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,204,537
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           797,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,407,537
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of National RV Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/Afor the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Bradley C.Albrechtsen, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and ThomasJ. Martini, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section. 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | */s/  Bradley C. Albrechtsen* |                         | */s/  Thomas J. Martini* |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Bradley C.  Albrechtsen       | Thomas J.  Martini           |
|   | Chief Executive  Officer      | Chief Financial  Officer     |
|   | and President                 | (Principal  Accounting and   |
|   | Date: October 5,  2005        | Financial  Officer)          |
|   |                          | Date: Date: October  5, 2005 |

 

----
Ricky Raymond BALL, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 18-8794.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
Parviz MONTAZER, petitioner, v. Parvin R. MONTAZER.

No. 18-201.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 15, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three denied.
Francisco ARGON, petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

No. 17-9002.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2035 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2035

      To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs 
      administered by the National Highway Traffic Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 1999

  Mr. Tauzin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To correct errors in the authorizations of certain programs 
      administered by the National Highway Traffic Administration.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE.

    (a) Motor Vehicle Safety.--Section 30104 of title 49, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``$81,200,000'' and inserting 
``$98,313,500''.
    (b) Motor Vehicle Information.--Section 32102 of title 49, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``$6,200,000'' and inserting 
``$9,562,500''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**AFFINITYGROUP, INC.**

 

**STATEMENTPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

I, Michael A. Schneider, President and Chief Executive Officer ofAffinity Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), herebycertify as follows:

 

1.                                       Thisstatement is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350in connection with the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2005 (the “Periodic Report”);

 

2.                                       ThePeriodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

3.                                       Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof dates and for the periods indicated therein.

 

 
| Date:   May 4, 2005 |                                  |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                          |                                  |
|                          |                                  |
|                          | /s/   Michael A. Schneider       |   |
|                          | Michael A. Schneider                  |
|                          | President and Chief Executive Officer |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or such other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thewritten statement as required by Section 906, has been provided toAffinity Group, Inc. and will be retained by Affinity Group, Inc. andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
I

106TH CONGRESS

1st Session H. R. 1901

To designate the United States border station located in Pharr, Texas, as

the ‘‘Kika de la Garza United States Border Station’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 20, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To designate the United States border station located in

Pharr, Texas, as the ‘‘Kika de la Garza United States

Border Station’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States border station located in Pharr,

5 Texas, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Kika de

6 la Garza United States Border Station’’.

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the border

10 station referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a
2

HR 1901 IH

1 reference to the ‘‘Kika de la Garza United States Border

2 Station’’.

Æ
```
  
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 06/22/10          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:       70,890
COMMITMENTS
     426    9,425    1,760   60,646   47,582   62,832   58,767    8,058   12,123

CHANGES FROM 06/15/10 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -19,485)
       0     -955   -1,672  -10,841  -10,304  -12,513  -12,931   -6,972   -6,554

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
     0.6     13.3      2.5     85.5     67.1     88.6     82.9     11.4     17.1

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       40)
       2       13        7       19       23       28       36
```

----

Updated June 25, 2010
Darnell RUSH, petitioner, v. Randee REWERTS, Warden.

No. 18-5540.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 9, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis Panel, June 08, 2022, 10:00 a.m. to June 09, 2022, 06:00 p.m., National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on May 02, 2022, 309841.                

Dr. Roy wanted to correct the title of the meeting to “Place-based Health Inequalities in Mid-life”. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: May 5, 2022.

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-10059 Filed 5-10-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P