alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-18-00029-CV



### ____________________
IN THE INTEREST OF J.D.J. and E.M.J.

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 14-05-05366-CV

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Joshua Jaros, Appellant, filed a noti ce of appeal with the trial court on December 20, 2017. Despite written notices from this Court and an opportunity to cure, to date, Appellant has neither established indigence nor paid the filing fee for the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 20.1. We notified the pa rties that the appeal would be dismissed unless the filing fee was paid. Appellant did not respond to the Court's notices. Appellant did not file a statement of inability to pay costs and has not shown that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1.2 Furthermore, Appellant failed to comply with a notice from the Clerk of the Court requiring a response within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). There being no satisfactory explanation for the failu re to pay the filing fee for the appeal, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice
Submitted on April 11, 2018 Opinion Delivered April 12, 2018 Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
IN RE C.N.

No. COA07-49.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Macon (04J49, 04J50).

Cases reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed in part and affirmed.
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
Dril-Quip, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Larry E. Reimert, Co-Chief Executive Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/    LARRY E.
REIMERT                                      
|Larry E. Reimert Co-Chief Executive Officer February 25,
2010
ESTATE OF BISSETTE v. KERNODLE.

No. COA06-1170.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007.

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Alamance (04CVS1834).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed.
STATE v. ROLAND.

COA06-634.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed May 15, 2007.

Certification Date June 4, 2007.

Appeal from Buncombe (03CRS7065, 03CRS7066, 03CRS53538, 03CRS53539).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

         As independent certified public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our report included in this Form 10-K into the previously filed
Registration Statements of the Company on Form S-3 File No. 333-37789, Form S-4
File No. 333-28951, Form S-4 File No. 333-23135, Form S-3 File No. 333-53099,
Form S-3 File No. 333-72611, Form S-8 File No. 333-22689, Form S-8 File No.
333-41341 and Form S-8 File No. 333-92227.

ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Fort Lauderdale, Florida
September 28, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from consolidated
balance sheets and consolidated statements of operations and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-22-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-24-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-24-1999
<CASH>                                          50,179
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   81,212
<ALLOWANCES>                                       603
<INVENTORY>                                  1,247,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,424,714
<PP&E>                                         610,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                 265,503
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,143,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          912,186
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       868,904
<OTHER-SE>                                     266,199
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,143,001
<SALES>                                      2,149,873
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,149,873
<CGS>                                        1,633,671
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,633,671
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,506
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,152
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,443
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,443
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21


</TABLE>
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00256

- CV

LORETTA PRICE APPELLANT

V.

SFR DAL I, LLC APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014

- 000747

- 1

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On January 13, 2015, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed

as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. P.

38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of pro secution unless

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within

ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and SUDDERTH, J.

DELIVERED: February 26, 2015
STATE of North Carolina v. Nathaniel Arnold CAUTHEN and Nathaniel Arnold Cauthen.

No. 442P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 14, 2006.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Nathaniel Arnold Cauthen.

Joan Cunningham, John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney Generals, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Richard B. Glazier, Fayetteville, for Rayshawn Denard Banner.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of August 2006 by Defendant (Cauthen) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th day of December 2006."
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 20, 2007.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th day of February 2007 by Defendant to Extend Time to Prepare and Serve Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 16th day of March 2007 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of February 2007."
Exhibit 32.2



TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC.



OFFICERS CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of TELETOUCH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2005
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Kernan Crotty, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 operation of the Company.



|                     |  |                                                       
|-------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 19, 2005 |  | /s/ J. Kernan Crotty                                  
|                     |  | J. Kernan Crotty President and Chief Financial Officer
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Scott McRAE.

No. 540P02-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Michael Scott McRae, Pro Se, Glenda Morris for McRae.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Edward W. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 14th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 26th day of March 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari and attachments under G.S. 7A-32(b) to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 3rd day of May 2007."
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2903

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Bradley Dean Craig, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 5, 2007

Filed: October 18, 2007 

___________

Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bradley Dean Craig appeals the 87-month prison sentences the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to receiving and possessing child pornography. See

18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(A), (a)(5)(B). For reversal, Craig argues that the district

court erred in denying his request for a downward variance based on his history of

extensive community service.
-2-

We conclude that Craig’s sentences are not unreasonable. See United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261-62 (2005) (discussing appellate review). The district court

imposed these sentences--which were at the bottom of the applicable Guidelines

range--after properly considering all of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including

Craig’s history and circumstances. See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2463-

68 (2007) (approving appellate presumption of reasonableness for sentence within

advisory Guidelines range); United States v. Haack, 403 F.3d 997, 1003-04 (8th Cir.

2005) (describing appropriate consideration of § 3553(a) factors). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1





ClubCorp, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re: Registration Statements Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 333-57107,
    and 333-52612

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated October 9, 2001, related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.



                                       KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
October 16, 2001
Nicandro Sosa PARADA v. CUSTOM MAINTENANCE, INC. and HARBOR SPECIALITY INSURANCE CO., INC.

No. 612P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Douglas S. Harris, for Parada.

Bruce Hamilton, Tracey L. Jones, Julia S. Hooten, Raleigh, for Custom Maintenance, et al.

Buck Lattimore, Chairman, for Industrial Commission.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of December 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2013 of 24 July 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 717/2010 concerning the classification            of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 709/2013                     

# of 24 July 2013

# amending Regulation (EU) No 717/2010 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the                           Common Customs Tariff(1), and in particular Article 9(1)(a) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Commission Regulation (EU) No 717/2010(2) classified a so-called "exhaust gas temperature sensor" under CN code 8533 40 10 as other variable resistors.

(2)The product classified in Regulation (EU) No 717/2010 should be considered a fixed resistor because its resistance is not                              variable at will, but depends only on the temperature. It is therefore necessary to change the product's classification to                              CN code 8533 21 00.

(3)Regulation (EU) No 717/2010 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4)The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Customs Code Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The Annex to Regulation (EU) No 717/2010 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

# Article 2U.K.

Binding tariff information issued by the customs authorities of Member States which is not in accordance with Regulation (EU)                     No 717/2010, as amended by this Regulation, may continue to be invoked for a period of three months from the date of entry                     into force of this Regulation under Article 12(6) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92(3).                  

# Article 3U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Algirdas Šemeta                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

### “ANNEX

1

OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 210, 11.8.2010, p. 24.                           

3

OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2015

No. 04-15-00498-CR

EX PARTE Matthew Jamal JACKSON

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

On September 21, 2015, relator filed a “notice of appeal” with respect to this original 

habeas corpus proceeding which we will construe as a motion for rehearing. The panel has 

considered the motion and it is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on September 24, 2015.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ________________________________

 Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2014CR0148, styled The State of Texas v. Matthew Jamal Jackson, 

pending in the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Ron Rangel presiding.
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Young Broadcasting Inc. (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned hereby certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirementsof section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

May 10,2004

 
|   | /s/ Vincent  J. Young    |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Vincent  J. Young        |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/  James A. Morgan     |   |
|   | James  A. Morgan         |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2 - Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the Quarter Ended September 5, 2006 (the
Report) by ClubCorp, Inc. (Registrant), the undersigned hereby certifies that; to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                       |  |                        
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------
|Date: October 19, 2006 |  | /s/ Jeffery P. Mayer   
|                       |  | Jeffrey P. Mayer       
|                       |  | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Registrant and
will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1


Page 1 of 1 Page




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 
 In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Internet Infinity, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 (the Report), I, George Morris, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o(d)); and
 
 (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  Date: July 12, 2004
By:
/s/ George MorrisGeorge MorrisChief Financial Officer  The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.
STATE v. THORNE.

No. COA05-1327.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed August 1, 2006.

Certification Date August 21, 2006.

Appeal from Edgecombe (03CRS53759).

Case without published opinion. No error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	   		5
<CIK>               000929540
<NAME>              SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>	 	1,000
       
<S>				                  				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>						            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>					        	Dec-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>			          				Jan-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>				            	    Jun-30-1997
<CASH>				                		    5773
<SECURITIES>						            0
<RECEIVABLES>						           	15934
<ALLOWANCES>						            0
<INVENTORY>							            4687
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			         			27028
<PP&E>							                371267
<DEPRECIATION>						          	43406
<TOTAL-ASSETS>          						389023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	     				    17450
<BONDS>								            387372
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			     	     	0
<PREFERRED>							           	0
<COMMON>							            0
<OTHER-SE>							            (28900)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>			        389023
<SALES>								            84775
<TOTAL-REVENUES>					         	84775
<CGS>								            60415
<TOTAL-COSTS>						           	60415
<OTHER-EXPENSES>					         	3144
<LOSS-PROVISION>					         	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>					         	16386
<INCOME-PRETAX>					         		4830
<INCOME-TAX>						            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			      			    4830
<DISCONTINUED>					          		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>			         				0
<CHANGES>							            0
<NET-INCOME>            					    4830
<EPS-PRIMARY>						           	0
<EPS-DILUTED>						           	0
        

</TABLE>