alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 9, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MOHAMAD G. ALATKI, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00281-CV V.

TIDEWATER FINANCE COMPANY D/B/A TIDEWATER MOTOR CREDIT 

AND D/B/A TIDEWATER CREDIT SERVICES, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard its own motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on February 19, 2015. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, Mohamad G. Alatki.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**ANSWERS
      CORPORATION**


**FORM 10-Q/A
      FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2007**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I
      am the
      Chief Executive Officer of Answers Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
      “Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the
      Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 and filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q/A”).




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
      the Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.




Date:
                August 23, 2007
            
            /s/
                ROBERT S. ROSENSCHEINRobert
                S. RosenscheinChief
                Executive Officer
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00205-CR

______________________________

FELIPE RUBIO GASPAR, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 336th Judicial District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22384

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Felipe Rubio Gaspar appeals. We have received a motion from counsel asking us to extend

the time for filing his notice of appeal. He states that Gaspar was convicted June 12, 2008, that a

motion for new trial and arrest of judgment was filed, and that appellate counsel was appointed.

Counsel states that he asked the district clerk whether a notice of appeal had been filed and was told

that it had been. However, on October 15, 2008, counsel discovered that no notice of appeal had

been filed, and he filed a notice of appeal October 16, 2008.

With conviction and sentencing occurring June 12, 2008, and with a motion for new trial

being timely filed, the notice of appeal was due to be filed no more than ninety days later, on

September 10, 2008. The rule also provides a fifteen-day grace period, which expired September 25,

2008. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. The information before this Court reflects that no notice of appeal

or motion to extend time was filed until over twenty days after the expiration of the grace period. 

Our jurisdiction over an appeal is circumscribed by statute and rule, and we are not permitted

to engage in actions that will enlarge that jurisdiction. Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this

Court is without jurisdiction. Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993);see Slaton

v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Further, courts of appeals may not employ Rule 2

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure to suspend appellate time limits and thus expand our

jurisdiction. Garza v. State, 896 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); see TEX. R. APP. P. 2.
We are relying on counsel's statements concerning the timing of the events giving rise to the 1

notice of appeal. The relief sought must be granted by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

3

Therefore, based on the information before us, we must conclude the notice of appeal is

untimely.1

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: October 22, 2008

Date Decided: October 23, 2008

Do Not Publish
Ashley COMSTOCK, Plaintiff, v. Christopher M. COMSTOCK, Defendant.

No. COA17-179

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 31.4**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**

**SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15(d)-14(a), AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO **

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, James A. Brodie, certify that: 

 

|   | 1.     | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Metro One Telecommunications, Inc. (the “Company”) and                                                                                               |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | 2.     | Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report. |

| Dated: May 1, 2023 | /s/ James A. Brodie                                                                      |   |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  

      | James A. Brodie**

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |
COUNTY OF ONSLOW, State of North Carolina v. J.C., Petitioner.

No. COA17-207

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 19, 2017

**DILLON**, *Judge*.

The State appeals from an order of the trial court finding J.C. ("Petitioner") to be eligible for (1) an expunction of a criminal charge to which Petitioner pleaded guilty in 1987 and (2) an expunction of the dismissal of a criminal charge dismissed in exchange for Petitioner's guilty plea to the other offense. The trial court granted Petitioner's petitions for expunction pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-145.5 (2015) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-146 (2015) and ordered that the offenses be removed from Petitioner's record.

We conclude that the State has no statutory right to appeal an order of expunction, and we hereby grant Petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeal.

"[A]n appeal can be taken only from such judgments and orders as are designated by the statute regulating the right of appeal." *Veazey v. City of Durham,* 231 N.C. 357, 362, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381 (1950); *see also State v. Harrell,* 279 N.C. 464, 183 S.E.2d 638 (1971) (holding that in general, the State cannot appeal from a judgment in favor of a defendant in a criminal proceeding in the absence of a statute clearly conferring that right). As our Supreme Court has pointed out, the statute "which permits an appeal by the State in a criminal case is contained in [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 15A-1445" and this statute is to be "strictly construed." *State v. Elkerson,* 304 N.C. 658, 669-70, 285 S.E.2d 784, 791-92 (1982).

Our Court has previously held that where the State fails to demonstrate its right to appeal, "no appeal can be taken, and our Court is without jurisdiction over the appeal." *State v. Bryan,* 230 N.C. App. 324, 329, 749 S.E.2d 900, 904 (2013). Here, because N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1445 clearly does not include any reference to a right of the State to appeal from an order of expunction, we are compelled to conclude that the General Assembly did not intend to bestow such a right at the time the statute was adopted. "It is for the legislative power, not for the courts, to consider whether th[e] [statute] should [ ] be extended" to include such a right. *Hodges v. Lipscomb,* 128 N.C. 57, 58, 38 S.E. 281, 282 (1901). And while we note that our court has, on several occasions, reviewed expunctions, we have obtained jurisdiction to do so pursuant to the granting of a petition submitted to our Court by the State for writ of *certiorari. See, e.g., State v. Frazier,* 206 N.C. App. 306, 697 S.E.2d 467 (2010) (granting the State's petition for *certiorari*); *see also In re Robinson,* 172 N.C. App. 272, 615 S.E.2d 884 (2005); *In re Expungement for Kearney,* 174 N.C. App. 213, 620 S.E.2d 276 (2005); *In re Expungement for Spencer,* 140 N.C. App. 776, 538 S.E.2d 236 (2000).

The State has not filed a petition for *certiorari* in this matter. Accordingly, the State's appeal is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

Judges HUNTER, JR., and ARROWOOD concur.
---

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

I, John Curtis, Chief Executive Officer of Greenlite Ventures
Inc. (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company, for
      the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          
| | (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/ John Curtis*      
| | ------ | -----------------------
| | Name:  | JOHN CURTIS            
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer
| | Date:  | August 14, 2006        

A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57616-57617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19755]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-4950-N-14B]


Notice of HUD's Fiscal Year (FY) 2005 Notice of Funding 
Availability Policy Requirements and General Section to SuperNOFA for 
HUD's Discretionary Grant Programs; Housing Opportunities for Persons 
With AIDS (HOPWA); Second Competition--Extension of Application 
Deadline

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA); notice of extension of 
application deadline.

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

SUMMARY: On August 22, 2005, HUD published its NOFA for the Housing 
Opportunity for Persons With AIDS Program, second competition for 
Fiscal Year 2005. Because of the effects of Hurricane Katrina, HUD is 
extending the application deadline for this NOFA.

DATES: The application submission date for the second HOPWA NOFA 
competition is October 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Vos, Director, Office of HIV/
AIDS Housing, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department 
of Housing and Urban Development, 451

[[Page 57617]]

Seventh Street, SW., Room 7212, Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone 
202-708-1934 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with speech or 
hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the 
toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 21, 2005, HUD published its FY2005 
SuperNOFA for HUD's Competitive Grant Programs. The Housing 
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program NOFA competition, 
which was included in the SuperNOFA, closed on June 9, 2005. After 
reviewing and rating HOPWA applications submitted in response to the 
SuperNOFA, HUD anticipated that assistance would remain available for 
additional awards. As a result, on August 22, 2005 (70 FR 48970), HUD 
published in the Federal Register a NOFA for a second round of HOPWA 
funding. The application deadline for the second competition was 
October 6, 2005. Because of the widespread effects of Hurricane 
Katrina, HUD is extending the application deadline for the HOPWA second 
round competition to October 13, 2005.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Pamela H. Patenaude,
Assistant Secretary, for Community Planning and Development.
[FR Doc. 05-19755 Filed 9-28-05; 3:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4332 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the dollar limitation 

on the de minimis safe harbor from treatment as a capital expenditure 

for taxpayers without applicable financial statements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. GARDNER (for himself, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. TIPTON, Mr. LONG, and Mr. 

COFFMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to increase the 

dollar limitation on the de minimis safe harbor from 

treatment as a capital expenditure for taxpayers without 

applicable financial statements. 

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


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4332 IH

1 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN DOLLAR LIMITATION ON DE MINI2 MIS SAFE HARBOR FROM TREATMENT AS 

3 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR TAXPAYERS 

4 WITHOUT APPLICABLE FINANCIAL STATE5 MENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 

8 Treasury (or the Secretary’s designee) shall modify Treas9 ury Regulation section 1.263(a)–1(f)(1)(ii)(D) to increase 

10 the $500 limitation contained therein with respect to the 

11 de minimis safe harbor for taxpayers without applicable 

12 financial statements to $1,000. 

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The revised regulations 

14 under this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred 

15 in taxable years beginning after December 31, 2013. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

October 26, 2016

s1017 

# Order

Clerk October 26, 2016

151979

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151979

COA: 326878

Washtenaw CC: 07

- 000164

- FC

CLINT ANTHONY OUSLEY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2015 order

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.
STATE v. Marcus Reymond ROBINSON

411A94-6

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 1, 2018

Robert T. Thompson, Assistant District Attorney, G. Robert Hicks, III, Assistant District Attorney, William P. Hart, Sr., Senior Deputy Attorney General, Danielle Marquis Elder, Special Deputy Attorney General, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Jonathan Babb, Special Deputy Attorney General, William R. West, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Attorney at Law, Jay H. Ferguson, Attorney at Law, Durham, James E. Ferguson, II, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Cassandra Stubbs, Attorney at Law, D. Clark Smith, Jr., Attorney at Law, Donald H. Beskind, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Kenneth J. Rose, Attorney at Law, Durham, David Weiss, Attorney at Law, for Robinson, Marcus Reymond.

Jonathan P. Babb, Special Counsel to Attorney General.

Edward Joseph Blocher, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Social Scientists.

Cynthia F. Adcock, Attorney at Law, for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation of NC.

Janet Moore, Attorney at Law, for N.C. Citizens Excluded from Jury Service Based on Race.

Burton Craige, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Narendra K. Ghosh, Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, James E. Williams, Jr., Attorney at Law, Carrboro, for N.C. Advocates for Justice.

Jeffrey Gerrish, Attorney at Law, James P. Cooney, III, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Gregory B. Craig, Attorney at Law, Alex T. Haskell, Attorney at Law, for Former Senior U.S. Military Officials.

John R. Mills, Attorney at Law, for Experts in Law and Implicit Bias.

James E. Coleman, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Becton, Charles, et al.

Robert P. Mosteller, Attorney at Law, for Retired Members of the NC Judiciary.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of May 2017 by Charles Becton, Charles Daye, Valerie Johnson, Irving L. Joyner, Floyd B. McKissick, Jr., Cressie H. Thigpen, Jr., and Fred J. Williams for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 1st of March 2018."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

EDWARD R. THOMAS

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 553

[ May 28, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the

Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael C. Heisey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 472014CF000744A

.

Edward R. Thomas, Malone, pro se.

No appearance required from appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., W ARNE R and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

July 3, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00386

- CV

Arturo Rene ANAYA

, Appellant

v.

Juliana CASTILLO

, Appellee

From the 111th Judicial Distri ct Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CVG

- 00820

- D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A filing fee of $1 9 5.00 was due from appellant Arturo Rene Anaya when this appeal was filed but was not paid. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 51.941(a) ( West 2013 ); id. §§ 51.00 5 1, 51.207(b)(1) , 51.208 (West 2013); T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE S UPREME C OURT , I N C IVIL C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS , A ND B EFORE T HE J UDICIAL P ANEL ON M ULTIDISTRICT L I TIGATION ( Misc. Docket No. 13

- 9127, Aug. 16, 2013 ). The clerk of the court notified appellant of this deficiency in a letter dated Ma y 30, 20 14 , and stated the fee must be remitted no later than June 9, 2014 . The fee remains unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rul es of Appellate Procedure provides :

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

B at the time an item is presented for filing

B whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enf orce this rule by any order that is just.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore order appellant, not later than July 11, 2014

, to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee or (2) provide written proof to this court that he is excused by statute or the Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond s atisfactorily within the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3._____________________________ ____ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of July, 2014

.

______________________________ _____ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court