alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 2, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00156-CV 

GUARDIANSHIP OF ROSEMARY ELL, AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED PERSON 

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. PR-14-02036-3 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Myers, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Appellants appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing the guardianship proceeding. 

By letter dated March 14, 2017, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal as it 

appeared the notice of appeal was untimely. We instructed appellants to file a letter brief with an 

opportunity for appellee to file a response. The parties complied. 

When a timely post-judgment motion extending the appellate timetable is filed, a notice 

of appeal is due ninety days after the date the judgment is signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). 

Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(b). 

 The trial court signed the dismissal order on October 19, 2016. Appellants filed a timely 

motion for new trial on November 18, 2016. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a). Accordingly, the 

notice of appeal was due on January 17, 2017, ninety days after the date the dismissal order was 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellants filed a notice of appeal on February 14, 2017, 

twenty-eight days past the deadline. 
 –2– 

 In their jurisdictional brief, appellants explain that, although the trial court signed an 

order denying their motion for new trial on December 30, 2016, they did not receive notice of the 

order until January 26, 2017. Thus, they argue, their notice of appeal filed on February 14, 2017 

was timely as it was filed within thirty days of January 26, 2017. We disagree. It is the date the 

judgment is signed, not the date an order denying a motion for new trial is signed, that triggers 

the deadline for filing a notice of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a); Weik v. Second Baptist 

Church of Houston, 988 S.W.2d 437, 438 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). 

 Because appellants failed to file a timely notice of appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction 

over the appeal. We dismiss the appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

170156F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GUARDIANSHIP OF ROSEMARY ELL, 

AN ALLEGED INCAPACITATED 

PERSON 

No. 05-17-00156-CV 

 On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3, 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. PR-14-02036-3. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Myers and Brown participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee Mitchell Roll recover his costs of this appeal from 

appellants Kathy Marthe and Wilmer Roll. 

Judgment entered May 2, 2017.
#### In the Matter of Peter Graziano, Appellant, v Brion Travis, as Chair of the New York State Board of Parole, Respondent.

[801 NYS2d 91]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Connor, J.), entered June 2, 2004 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Board of Parole denying petitioner’s request for parole release.

Since the July 8, 2003 determination giving rise to this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioner has reappeared before the Board of Parole and his request for parole release has again been denied. Given petitioner’s subsequent reappearance before the Board in February 2005, the instant matter must be dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Baez v Travis,*10 AD3d 778 [2004], *lv denied*4 NY3d 702 [2004]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-01-1999
<CASH>                                           2,762
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  225,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               236,228
<PP&E>                                         276,803
<DEPRECIATION>                                (41,823)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,015
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          326,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       178,734
<OTHER-SE>                                   (102,832)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   570,015
<SALES>                                        337,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               337,165
<CGS>                                          202,149
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  353,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,399
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34,285)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (34,285)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)


</TABLE>
STATE v. Charles Anthony BALL.

No. 102P13-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Charles Anthony Ball, Spruce Pine, for Ball, Charles Anthony.

Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th of May 2015 by Defendant to Suppress:

> "Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

KEVIN R. BLAND,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________

2023

- 1694

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. SF

- 0752

- 16

- 0368

- I

- 1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Kevin R. Bland ’s motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the parties’ joint response to the court’s August 22, 2023

, order,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

(1) The motion is granted. The petition for review is

dismissed. Case: 23-1694 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2023BLAND v. AIR FORCE 2

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 30 , 2023

Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 30, 2023 Case: 23-1694 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2023
BLAYLOCK GRADING COMPANY, LLP v. NEAL EVERETT SMITH and Neal Smith Engineering, Inc.

No. 208P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Edgar R. Bain, Lillington, for Blaylock Grading Co.

Adrianne Huffman, Erik Rosenwood, David B. Hamilton, Charlotte, for Neal Smith, et al.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 658 S.E.2d 680.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of May 2008 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 26th day of August 2008."
# Official Journal C 248A/16 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 248A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6116 July 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 248A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6116 July 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Central Bank |
| 2018/C 248 A/01 | Vacancy notice — Chair of the Supervisory Board | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Central Bank

2018/C 248 A/01

Vacancy notice — Chair of the Supervisory Board

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Phillip Heard, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 551]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment *1439granted *(see People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38 [1979]). (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Richard A. Keenan, J.—Assault, 2nd Degree). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### Lamparelli Construction Co., Inc., Respondent, v Berkley Square of Hamburg, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Tom Greenauer Development, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Tom Greenauer Development, Inc., Appellant, v Berkley Square of Hamburg, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Lamparelli Construction Co., Inc., Respondent. (Action No. 2.)

(Appeal No. 2.)

[801 NYS2d 181]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph G. Makowski, J.), entered May 3, 2004. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied the motion of Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. seeking summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it in action No. 1 and seeking judgment against defendant Lamparelli Construction Co., Inc. in action No. 2.

*1265It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Lamparelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Berkley Sq. of Hamburg, Inc.*(21 AD3d 1263 [2005]). Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Pine, JJ.
* 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. 07-41211

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RITA CANTU-LEIJA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:07-CR-325-1

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Rita Cantu-Leija has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Cantu-Leija has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE v. Jessica Rasheeda JORDAN.

No. 299P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 24, 2015.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Jordan, Jessica.

Alesia Mikhaulauna Balshakova, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 24th of August 2015 by Plaintiff-Appellant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 24th of August 2015."
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 Colombia Energy Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), the undersigned principal financial officer of
the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: March 30, 2012



|/s/ James A. Flores                      | 
|---------------------------------------- | 
|James A. Flores, Chief Financial Officer | 
|(Principal Financial Officer)            |
Angell COPPER, by his mother and guardian ad litem, Sherry Copper; Desmond Johnson, by his father and guardian ad litem, Wilmer Johnson; Eric Warren and Dion Warren, by their mother and guardian ad litem, Deann Warren; Joshua Thorpe, by his mother and guardian ad litem, Treco Thorpe; Todd Douglas, deceased, by his mother and administratrix of his estate, Sheryl Smith; Deantonio Rhodes, by his mother and guardian ad litem, Linda Rhodes; Jazmyn Jenkins; and Gina Solari; as individuals and as representatives of the class of similarly situated Durham Public School students v. Ann T. DENLINGER, individually and as Superintendent of Durham Public Schools; The Durham Public School Board of Education; Gail Heath, individually and as Chair of the Durham Public School Board of Education; Heidi Carter, Steve Martin and Steve Schewel, individually and as members of the Durham Public School Board of Education; Larry McDonald, individually and as former Principal of Southern High School; Richard Webber, individually and as Principal of C.E. Jordan High School; Rodriquez Teal, individually and as Principal of Southern High School; Worth Hill, Durham County Sheriff; and R.A. Sipple and Joseph Costa, individually, as agents and employees of the Durham County Sheriff, as agents of the Superintendent of Durham Public Schools, and as agents of the Durham Public School Board of Education.

No. 526A08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Ann L. Majestic, Raleigh, for School Board, et al.

Frances P. Solari, for Copper, et al.

Ann S. Estridge, Dan M. Hartzog, Jr., Raleigh, for Denlinger.

*687Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 667 S.E.2d 470.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendants (Denlinger and Board of Education) on the 25th day of November 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (substantial constitutional question), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the notice of appeal is

"Dismissed ex mero motu by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendants (Denlinger and Board of Education) on the 25th day of November 2008 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."

Defendants shall forthwith submit an appeal bond to this Court, as provided by Appellate Rule 17(b). The bond may be in cash or by a written undertaking with good and sufficient surety in the sum of $250.00.

Accordingly, the new brief of the Defendant shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE v. SCOTT.

No. COA08-384.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Cabarrus (07CRS50024, 07CRS003702).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
MOUNTAIN VILLAGES, LLC. et al. v. SADLER.

No. 204P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 13, 2015.

Zara Ellis Sadler, for Sadler, Zara Ellis.

Mountain Villages and Lori Richards, for Mountain Villages, LLC.

for Mountain Villages, LLC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of July 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 13th of July 2015."
Argued and submitted January 7,

ballot title certified January 21, 2000

#### Denise M. MILLS, *Petitioner, v.*Hardy MYERS, Attorney General for the State of Oregon, *Respondent, and*Gregory KAFOURY and Ronda Hatefi, *Intervenors.*

(SC S47021)

995 P2d 1158

Michael Mills, Salem, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner.

Philip Scradle, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Linda K. Williams, Portland, filed a memorandum for intervenors.

PER CURIAM

*584PER CURIAM

This is a ballot title review proceeding brought under ORS 250.085(2). Petitioner is an elector who timely submitted written comments concerning the content of the draft ballot title submitted to the Secretary of State and who therefore is entitled to seek review of the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. *See*ORS 250.085(2) (setting that requirement).

We have considered each of petitioner’s arguments concerning the ballot title certified by the Attorney General. We conclude that none establishes that the Attorney General’s certified ballot title fails to comply with the standards for such ballot titles set out in ORS 250.035(2)(a) to (d) (1997). Accordingly, we certify to the Secretary of State the following ballot title:

> AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PROHIBITS LOTTERY COMMISSION FROM CONTINUING AUTHORIZATION OF VIDEO CASINO GAMES

> RESULT OF ‘YES” VOTE: ‘Yes” vote prohibits Lottery Commission from continuing authorization of video poker, other video casino games.

> RESULT OF “NO” VOTE: “No” vote allows Lottery Commission to continue to authorize video poker, other video casino games.

> SUMMARY: Amends constitution. Lottery Commission may now initiate games using video devices; proceeds from such games must be transferred to Economic Development Fund. Measure amends constitution to prohibit Commission from initiating new games using video devices and to prohibit Commission from authorizing games using video devices that play or simulate a casino game of dice or cards or a roulette wheel. Measure also requires all operations of video poker or other video casino games previously authorized by the Commission to cease by January 1, 2004.

Ballot title certified. This decision shall become effective in accordance with ORAP 11.30(10).
**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**





For
      purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Anthony Principe, the chief
      financial officer of On2 Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies
      that, to his knowledge:





(i)
      the
      Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007,
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(ii)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





By:
            /s/
                ANTHONY PRINCIPEAnthony
                Principe*Chief
                Financial Officer**On2
                Technologies, Inc.*





June
        27,
        2008
IN RE R.A.E.

No. COA08-1024.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed January 20, 2009.

Certification Date February 9, 2009.

Appeal from Wilkes (02JT218).

Case reported without published opinion. Vacated.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5






<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                  Jun-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   May-31-1999
<CASH>                                             340,350
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      817,614
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         57,596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,273,813
<PP&E>                                             456,627
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (350,605)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,829,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,064,390
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             7,777
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,829,362
<SALES>                                          7,204,712
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,204,712
<CGS>                                            3,812,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,812,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,158,849
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  28,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,215,346
<INCOME-TAX>                                        55,700
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,159,646
<EPS-BASIC>                                           0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.14




</TABLE>