alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
STATE of North Carolina v. Agnes Maybelle CHEVALIER.

No. 46P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Caroline Farmer, Special Counsel, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Defendant's *pro se* motion for relief is: (1) dismissed with respect to defendant's argument that because she was not convicted of felony possession of stolen goods she could not properly have been convicted of felony larceny and (2) dismissed without prejudice to file a motion for appropriate relief in the trial court with respect to defendant's ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel claims. The remainder of defendant's *pro se* motion for relief is denied.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 3rd day of May, 2007.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 130307 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

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

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 130307 

 COA: 254861 

Macomb CC: 2003-002408-FC 

SHANE SWINDALL CHAMBERS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 17, 2005 

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

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

d0522 

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. 

May 30, 2006 

Clerk
PROGRESS ENERGY CAROLINAS, INC. v. SULLIVAN.

No. COA07-287.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Pender (05CVS471).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Dismissed.
CURRIN v. BRISTOL

No. COA06-632

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Wake (05CVS5613).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

STATEMENT UNDER OATH OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO EXCHANGE ACT FILINGS

I, George R. Mihalko, state and attest that:

(1)  To the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the covered reports of
     The Sports Authority, Inc., and, except as corrected or supplemented in a
     subsequent covered report:

          .    no covered report contained an untrue statement of a material
               fact as of the end of the period covered by such report (or in
               the case of a report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials,
               as of the date on which it was filed); and

          .    no covered report omitted to state a material fact necessary to
               make the statements in the covered report, in light of the
               circumstances under which they were made, not misleading as of
               the end of the period covered by such report (or in the case of a
               report on Form 8-K or definitive proxy materials, as of the date
               on which it was filed).

(2)  I have reviewed the contents of this statement with the Company's audit
     committee.

(3)  In this statement under oath, each of the following, if filed on or before
     the date of this statement, is a "covered report";

          .    The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended February
               2, 2002 of The Sports Authority, Inc.

          .    all reports on Form 10-Q, all reports on Form 8-K and all
               definitive proxy materials of The Sports Authority, Inc. filed
               with the Commission subsequent to the filing of the Form 10-K
               identified above; and

          .    any amendments to the foregoing.

/s/ George R. Mihalko                          Subscribed and sworn to
------------------------------                 before me this 12th day of
George R. Mihalko                              September, 2002
Date: September 12, 2002
      ------------------------

                                               /s/ Patricia B. Rudnick
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Notary Public

                                               My Commission Expires:

                                               September 22, 2003
                                               --------------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such fiancial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,138
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,138
<PP&E>                                             665
<DEPRECIATION>                                      99
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  22,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,810
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,306
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,105
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    22,221
<SALES>                                            541
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   541
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,113
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (18,548)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (18,548)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (18,548)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
Order filed March 10 , 2022.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00005

- CV

IN RE CAROLYN E . DOUGLAS, INDIVIDUALLY AND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF INTEGRA WEALTH ADVISORS, LLC , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 61st District Court Ha r ris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2020

- 77058



### O RDER

On January 6, 2022 , relator s C arolyn E . Douglas, individually and derivatively on behalf of Integra Wealth Advisors, LLC filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code An n . § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this Court to compel the Honorable Fredericka Phillips, presiding judge of the 61st District Court of Harris County
, to

vacate the trial court ’ s December 17, 2021 order, denying relat o r s ’ request to temporarily lift the stay and hold a hearing on its application for temporary injunction.
Relator must file with the petition a sufficient record to establish the right to
relief. Walker v. Packer
, 82 7 S.W .2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. p r oceeding) ; s ee also In re Le , 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 ( Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding ) (stating that “[t]hose seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus2

must f o llow the applicable procedural ru l es

. Chief among these is the critical

o b ligation to p r ovide the reviewing court with a comp lete and adequate record.”) (footnote omitted) )

. Rela tor s ’ petition and appendix do not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. I n support of relato r s ’ mandamus, relator s provided the
Court with various documents; h owever, relator s did not include a verif ication that
relator s filed with their petitio n “ a certified or s worn copy of every document that
is material to the relator ’ s claim for relief and th at w a s filed in any underlying proceedin g

. ” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)( 1 ) . Relator s also did not verify that relator s filed with their pe tition “ a properly a uth enticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding

. . . or a statement th at n o t estimony
was adduced in conne c tion with the matter complained. ” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7( a )( 2 ). By this order, the Court gives relator s notice that the petition will be
d ismissed unless relator s supplement and/or amend the petition to addresses the
record is s ue s identified above on or be f or e March 18, 2022.

T he court requests that the real part ies in interest in the underlying matter
file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before April 15, 2022

. See Tex. R. App . P. 52.4, 5 2.8 ( b) (1).

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Spain, and Hassan.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1




                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS.1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002


IN CONNECTION WITH THE QUARTERLY REPORT OF ORPHAN MEDICAL, INC. (THE "COMPANY")
ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AS FILED WITH THE
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON THE DATE HEREOF (THE "REPORT"), I, JOHN H.
BULLION, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, CERTIFY, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SS.1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002,
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 REPECTS, THE FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS OF
         THE COMPANY.


                                                   /s/ John H. Bullion
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   JOHN H. BULLION
                                                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                                                   NOVEMBER 13, 2002
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16811]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR PART 52

[R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002; FRL-7958-4]

Approval and Disapproval of Ohio Implementation Plan for 
Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is reopening the comment period for a proposed rule 
published June 27, 2005 (70 FR 36901). On June 27, 2005, EPA proposed 
to disapprove revisions to Ohio rules that provide for use of 
continuous opacity monitoring data but allow more exceedances of the 
general opacity limit in cases where the owner of an eligible large 
coal fired boiler opts to use these data for determining compliance. 
EPA also proposed to approve other elements of Ohio's rule submittal 
that clarified Ohio's rules. In response to requests from the Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency and from the law firm of Shumaker, Loop 
& Kendrick, EPA is reopening the comment period through August 24, 
2005. All comments received on or before August 24, 2005 will be 
entered into the public record and considered by EPA before taking 
final action on the proposed rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 24, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by Regional Material in EDocket 
(RME) ID No. R05-OAR-2005-OH-0002, to: John Mooney, Chief, Criteria 
Pollutant Section, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Phone: (312) 886-4447. 
E-mail: [email protected]. Additional instructions to comment can be 
found in the notice of proposed rulemaking published June 27, 2005 (70 
FR 36901).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant 
Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone Number: (312) 353-4761, 
E-mail Address: [email protected].

    Dated: August 2, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 05-16811 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
S. 3296 

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

An Act 

To extend the authority of the United States Supreme Court Police to protect 

court officials off the Supreme Court Grounds and change the title of the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT POLICE AND COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE. 

(a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME

COURT POLICE TO PROTECT COURT OFFICIALS OFF THE SUPREME

COURT GROUNDS.—Section 6121(b)(2) of title 40, United States 

Code, is amended by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2013’’. 

(b) COUNSELOR TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.— 

(1) OFFICE OF FEDERAL JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION.—Section 

133(b)(2) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking 

‘‘administrative assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘Counselor’’. 

(2) JUDICIAL OFFICIAL.—Section 376(a) of title 28, United 

States Code, is amended— 

(A) in paragraph (1)(E), by striking ‘‘an administrative 

assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘a Counselor’’; and 

(B) in paragraph (2)(E), by striking ‘‘an administrative 

assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘a Counselor’’. 

(3) ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 677 of title 28, United States 

Code, is amended— 

(i) in the section heading, by striking ‘‘Administrative Assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘Counselor’’; 

(ii) in subsection (a)— 

(I) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘an 

Administrative Assistant’’ and inserting ‘‘a Counselor’’; and 

(II) in the second and third sentences, by 

striking ‘‘Administrative Assistant’’ each place that 

term appears and inserting ‘‘Counselor’’; and 

(iii) in subsections (b) and (c), by striking ‘‘Administrative Assistant’’ each place that term appears and 

inserting ‘‘Counselor’’. 

(B) TABLE OF SECTIONS.—The table of sections for 

chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

by striking the item relating to section 677 and inserting 

the following: 

‘‘677. Counselor to the Chief Justice.’’. 
S. 3296—2 

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON ACCEPTANCE OF HONORARY CLUB MEMBERSHIPS. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) GIFT.—The term ‘‘gift’’ has the meaning given under 

section 109(5) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 

U.S.C. App.). 

(2) JUDICIAL OFFICER.—The term ‘‘judicial officer’’ has the 

meaning given under section 109(10) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.). 

(b) PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF HONORARY CLUB MEMBERSHIPS.—A judicial officer may not accept a gift of an honorary club membership with a value of more than $50 in any calendar 

year. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Motion for Rehearing Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed June 20, 2013, 

Withdrawn, Appeal Reinstated and Order filed August 8, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00252-CV

____________

CHRISTOPHER MULGREW, Appellant

V.

SPECTRASEIS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-41761

ORDER

On June 20, 2013, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal. On, 

July 5, 2013, appellant filed a motion for rehearing. Appellee filed a response July 

19, 2013. The motion is GRANTED. 

This court’s opinion filed June 20, 2013, is WITHDRAWN, and our 

judgment of that date is VACATED. The appeal is ordered REINSTATED. 
PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Advanced Optics  Electronics,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Leslie
Robins, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
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.

                                                   /s/ Leslie Robins
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   April 13, 2005

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, an 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 Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

oFFIC!fA~ 6U~r~\ICf::AS~L sT~TION .A ~I ·"; ~s t.~JifhosTAGE))PITNEYBoWEs 

STATE OF TEXAS 4%~~<~ . · ·; {(([.~,. f~~ff PENAL TV FOR -f~-~~~y'~:·,,<\,. --: ~ == s 

PRIVATE USE ;1t·~r-,:z~~~;,· ·· ~ ~~~~701 $ (0)(0)(0).~1 . ~Sl .:~iji:~ ,~ ·., 0001401623 JUN. 17. 2015 

6/17/2015 I'{~:~; <(.·· ;c·A 7 zr··.,~ 

JONES, ISAAC JAMES ,\\~ot •,N}r.~1{1~~:1:~~ WR-19, 143-08 

The Court has dismissed withoO\~ritt~~<1[_9,~r·trjs subsequent application for a writ 

of habeas corpus. TEX. CODE CRI~-~0~:t;i\7ft. 11.07, Sec. 4(a)-(c). . . 

·"'~ Abel Acosta, Clerk 

t·1EEN36 77078 

ISAAC JA~..:l,<?NES .. · · 

SOUTHEAS'r"l'~fo...JRANSITIONAL CENTER 

10950 BEA~~1iib~AY ANK I . HOUSTO~Oif j l o.~vt ) 

. _IJ 2ots · . 1 

. . . . l-lcfL411VJ . . ·. . . .1. !Eb . '• 

Jl,;lljji•IJ'IIII'"III.j.l •11•111nl' ul•u.llt;lj i11 ,,IJI,ul,; ·· 

~
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
                                                                                
                                        
                               WEEKS REALTY, L.P.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON UNIT
               FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND 1997

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Three Months    Three Months
                                                 Ended           Ended
   (In thousands, except per share data)     March 31, 1998  March 31, 1997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computation of Net Income Per Common Unit
Net income available to Common
  Unitholders - basic and diluted                   $ 7,318         $ 5,058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average Common Units - basic                24,868          18,605
Dilutive securities -
  Stock options                                         195             235
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average Common Units - diluted              25,063          18,840
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Income Per Common Unit
  Basic                                             $  0.29         $  0.27
  Diluted                                           $  0.29         $  0.27
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

RICARDO R. CASTILLEJOS,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT,

Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1207

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. SF

- 0831

- 17

- 0586

- I

- 1.

______________________

P ER C URIAM

.

O R D E R

Having considered all response s from the parties to

this court’s order directing them to address whether this

court ha s jurisdiction over Ricardo R. Castillejos’ petition

for review of a decision from the Merit Systems Protection

Board, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction.

Mr. Castillejos ’ petition seeks review of the Board ’s final September 12, 2022, decision, but this court did not receive his petition until November 22, 2022, 71 days later

. Under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A), a petition to review a final

decision by the Board must be filed “within 60 days after Case: 23-1207 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 04/06/2023CASTILLEJOS v. OPM 2

the Board issues notice of the final

. . . decision ,” and this

deadline is mandatory and jurisdictional

. Fedora v. Merit

Sys. Prot. Bd ., 848 F.3d 1013, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2017). It also

“requires actual receipt by the court, not just timely mailing.” Id. ; see Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)

. Because the petition is untimely, we dismiss.

Accordingly

,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The petition for review is dismissed.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

April 6 , 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 23-1207 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 04/06/2023