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

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

____________________ NO. 09
- 1 4
- 00 308
- C R



### ____________________ DAVID CHARLES KIRKLAND , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________________ ______________ _____________ On Appeal from the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 13
- 09
- 10315 CR

________________________________________ _____________________________ ORDER The clerk’s record in the above styled and numbered cause was filed October 1, 2014, and the reporter’s record was filed October 30, 2014. On December 1 , 201 4 , the Court granted an extension of time to file the brief

. On January 9 , 2015, the appellant’s co urt

- appointed attorney, Mark Phillips , was notified that neither the brief of the appellant nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief has been filed. Although the brief of the appellant was due to be filed Wednesday, December 31, 2014, the brief has not been filed. The Clerk of2 the Court has c ontacted appellant’s court appointed attorney on February 12, 2015, February 17, 2015 and February 20, 2015 but has received no response. We abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to conduc t a hearing at which a representative of the State, counsel for the appellant, and the appellant shall be present in person. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(3). If the appellant is not incarcerated, but fails to appear at the hearing after having been notified to do so, or after reasonable attempts to notify him have been made, then the trial court may enter a finding that appellant no longer desires to pursue the appeal and send said finding to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P

. 38.8(b)(4). If the appellant is p resent for the hearing, we direct the trial court to determine whether or not appellant desires to pursue his appeal. If appellant desires to pursue his appeal, we direct the trial court to determine why the brief of the appellant has not been filed, why a ppellant’s counsel has not responded to late notices from this Court, and whether good cause exists for appointed counsel, Mark Phillips , to be relieved of his duties as appellate counsel and replaced by substitute counsel. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. a rt. 26.04(j)(2) (West Supp. 201 4 ). If the trial court determines that good cause exists to relieve appointed counsel of his duties, we direct the trial court to appoint substitute counsel.3 The record of the hearing, including any orders and findings of th e trial court judge, shall be sent to the appellate court for filing. The transcription of the court reporter’s notes from the hearing and the recommendations of the trial court judge are to be filed on or before March 30 , 2015. ORDER ENTERED February 26, 2015

. PER CURIAM Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.
##### 



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 quarterly report of Town Sports International
Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2004 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard Pyle, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:  (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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Company. /s/ Richard PyleTown Sports International Holdings,
Inc.Chief Financial OfficerOffice of the PresidentNovember 10, 2004
----

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 Quarterly Report of ICP SolarTechnologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30,2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the "Report"), I, Sass Peress, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 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 ofthe Company. 

/s/ *Sass Peress                                       *Sass Peress Chief Executive Officer June 23, 2008 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwiseadopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic versionof this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retainedby the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company'sForm 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United StatesCode) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separatedisclosure document. 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. John Eddie MANGUM

No. 452P16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2017.

Nicholas C. Woomer-Deters, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Mangum, John Eddie.

Robert T. Broughton, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th of December 2016 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 16th of December 2016 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was *9entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 16th of March 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th of January 2017 by Defendant 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 16th of March 2017."
Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-100118 of McLeodUSA Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated
February 19, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of McLeodUSA Incorporated as of December 31, 2002 and for the period from January 1, 2002 through
April 16, 2002 and for the period from April 17, 2002 through December 31, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of McLeodUSA Incorporated for the period from
January 1, 2002 through April 16, 2002 and the period from April 17, 2002 through December 31, 2002.

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas,
Texas
March 31, 2003

---

QuickLinks
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1600

BOBBY N. HOLLAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 95-2335)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bobby N. Holland, Appellant Pro Se. Gilbert Steven Rothenberg,

Gary R. Allen, Patricia McDonald Bowman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Stuart L. Brown, INTERNAL REVENUE

SERVICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the tax court's order granting summary

judgment to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and upholding a

finding of a tax deficiency and penalties. We have reviewed the

record and the tax court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Holland

v. Commissioner, No. 95-2335 (Tax Ct. Feb. 6, 1996). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# 05-70384 - MAZARIEGOS v. MUKASEY

Schroeder, DW Nelson, Reinhardt, CJJ

442.2884
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-339-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.F., 

A CHILD

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

FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Harry Matthew F. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

interlocutory order, which ordered the parties to amend their pleadings. On

August 25, 2008, we sent Harry a letter stating our concern that we may have

no jurisdiction over this appeal because the order does not appear to be a final

appealable order or judgment, nor does it appear to be an appealable

interlocutory order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)

(Vernon 2008) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con
2

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal

may be taken only from a final judgment). We indicated that this court would

dismiss this appeal if we did not receive a response showing grounds for

continuing the appeal by September 4, 2008. Harry filed a response on

September 4, 2008, arguing that the May 28, 2008 order disposed of all issues

“other than the enforcement of the arrearage, if any, that [is] owed by Harry.”

[Emphasis added.] Because the May 28, 2008 order does not dispose of all

issues, it is not a final judgment.

Accordingly, because the order is neither a final judgment nor an

appealable interlocutory order, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: September 25, 2008
Larry Edgar MASSENGILL, Administrator of the Estate of the Late Clinton Alexander Massengill, Plaintiff, v. Brian Wayne BAILEY, Defendant.

No. COA16-1084

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 18, 2017

NO ERROR.
**Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst**

**(Case C‐227/11)**

Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Network analysers — Classification — Legal value of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation

1.                     *Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Interpretation — Recourse to classification opinions of the World Customs Organisation —
Recourse to the Combined Nomenclature — Limits — Opinion incapable of providing grounds for the invalidity of a classification
regulation — Goods imported before that opinion was adopted (see paras 40, 43)*

2.                     *Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Active network analysers — Classification in subheading 9030 40 90 or in subheading
9030 40 00 of the Combined Nomenclature — Condition (Commission Regulations No 1810/2004 and No 1719/2005) (see para 53 and
operative part)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 of 20 January 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37) — Network analysers. |

**Operative part**

The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004,
and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, respectively, must be interpreted as meaning that network
analysers such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be classified in subheading 9030 40 90 of the combined nomenclature,
as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in subheading 9030 40 00 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation
No 1719/2005, depending on the date of their import, provided that the devices are intended to measure or check electrical
quantities, which it is for the national court to ascertain. If they are not, those devices must be classified in subheading
9031 80 39 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in subheading 9031 80 38 of the combined
nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, depending on the date of their import.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ESTATE OF JOHN J. MCGARRY, DECEASED

PETITION OF: ROBERT A. KLEIN, ESQUIRE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATOR D.B.N. OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN J. MCGARRY :

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 115 EM 2019

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 10th day of February , 2020

, the Application “for Leave to File

Reply in Support of Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary

Jurisdiction and for Oral Argument,” to the extent it seeks leave to file a reply, is

GRANTED. In all other respect, the Application “fo r Leave to File Reply in Support of

Application for Exercise of King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary Jurisdiction and for Oral

Argument” is DENIED.

The Application “to Supplement the Record and/or Conform the Record,” to the

extent it seeks leave to file t hat submission in this Court, is GRANTED. In all other

respects, the Application “to Supplement the Record and/or Conform the Record” is

DENIED.

The Application “for Exercise of Either King’s Bench Power or Extraordinary

Jurisdiction” is DENIED.

Just ices Dougherty and Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision

of this matter.
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 Quarterly Report of Innocap, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, B. Alva Schoomer,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1.       The Report fully complies with 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/B. Alva Schoomer
   B. Alva Schoomer
   Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
   November 15, 2004
IN RE: Alex Ohara KING

No. 128P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 8, 2017

Alex Ohara King, for King, Alex Ohara.

Amy Kunstling Irene, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jon David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th of April 2017 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Brunswick County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th of June 2017."
Presidential Documents

5041

Federal Register 

Vol. 70, No. 19

Monday, January 31, 2005

Title 3— 

The President 

Executive Order 13371 of January 27, 2005

Amendments to Executive Order 13285, Relating to the President’s Council on Service and Civic Participation 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and in order to modify the mission 

and functions of the President’s Council on Service and Civic Participation 

(Council) and to extend the Council, it is hereby ordered that Executive 

Order 13285 of January 29, 2003, is amended as follows: 

Section 1. (a) Sections 2(a) and 2(b) of Executive Order 13285 are revised 

to read as follows: ‘‘(a) The mission and functions of the Council shall 

be to: 

(i) promote volunteer service and civic participation in American society; 

(ii) encourage the recognition of outstanding volunteer service through 

the presentation of the President’s Volunteer Service Award by Council 

members and Certifying Organizations, thereby encouraging more such activity; 

(iii) promote the efforts and needs of local non-profits and volunteer 

organizations, including volunteer centers; 

(iv) promote greater public access to information about existing volunteer 

opportunities, including via the Internet; 

(v) assist with the promotion of Federally administered volunteer programs 

and the link that they have to increasing and strengthening community 

volunteer service; and 

(vi) promote increased and sustained private sector sponsorship of and 

engagement in volunteer service. 

(b) In carrying out its mission, the Council shall: 

(i) encourage broad participation in the President’s Volunteer Service 

Award program by qualified individuals and groups, especially students 

in primary schools, secondary schools, and institutions of higher learning; 

(ii) exchange information and ideas with interested individuals and organizations on ways to expand and improve volunteer service and civic participation; 

(iii) advise the Chief Executive Officer of the CNCS on broad dissemination, 

especially among schools and youth organizations, of information regarding 

recommended practices for the promotion of volunteer service and civic 

participation, and other relevant educational and promotional materials; 

(iv) monitor and advise the Chief Executive Officer of the CNCS on the 

need for the enhancement of materials disseminated pursuant to subsection 

2(b)(iii) of this order; and 

(v) make recommendations from time to time to the President, through 

the Director of the USA Freedom Corps, on ways to encourage greater 

levels of volunteer service and civic participation by individuals, schools, 

and organizations.’’

5042 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 19 / Monday, January 31, 2005 / Presidential Documents 

Sec. 2. Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13285 is revised to read as follows: 

‘‘(b) Unless further extended by the President, this order shall expire on 

Billing code 3195

Filed 1

[FR Doc. 05

–28–05; 9:46 am] 

–1886

–01–P 

January 29, 2007.

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, January 27, 2005. 

’’

W
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 30677 Summary Calendar

GARY DANIEL RODGERS,

Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. R. MCINTYRE, Deputy; JAMAL PERRIER, Deputy; J. BOUDOIN, Deputy; NEWELL NORMAND, Sheriff,

Defendants

- Appellees

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15

- CV

- 2642

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Gerry Daniel Rodgers appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit. The district court entered final judgment in favor of defendants on February 17, 2017. Rodgers’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was therefore March 20, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) ; F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4( a )(1) (A). It was not filed until September 26, 2017.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020No. 17

- 30677

2 Timely filing of a notice of appeal “is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Colbert v. Brennan , 752 F.3d 412, 416 (5th Cir. 2014). Without a timely notice, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Even though the Federal Rules direct that “[a]n appeal . . . may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district clerk,” F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 3(a)(1), our Circuit has allowed “the timely filing of a
document [ ] which is the equivalent of a notice of appeal” to suffice, Stevens v.
Heard , 674 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 1982). At a minimum, a notice of appeal must (1) specify the party taking the appeal; (2) identify the judgment being appealed; and (3) “name the cou rt to which the appeal is taken.” F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 3(c)(1). W e are to “liberally construe” these requirements, but “[t]his principle of liberal construction does not . . . excuse noncompliance with the letter” of the Rule. Smith v. Barry , 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992). Here, the only document that could arguably serve as the equivalent of

a timely notice of appeal is Rodgers’s “Motion and Order to Release Evidence,” filed on March 6, 2017. That motion names Rodgers as the moving party, but does not identify the j udgment from which he intended to appeal, or the court to which he planned on taking the appeal. It is not enough to satisfy “only one of the three requirements of a notice of appeal.” Bailey v. Cain , 609 F.3d 763, 766 (5th Cir. 2010). The Motion and Order to Release Evidence therefore did not serve as a timely notice , and we lack jurisdiction to hear Rodgers’s appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020