alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOSEPH JOHN BONGIOVI, JR., Appellant, v. YVONNE M. BONGIOVI, Respondent.

No. 10615

June 14, 1978

579 P.2d 1246

*Manzonie & Massi,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Lehman Professional Corp.,*Las Vegas, for Respondent.

*322OPINION*

*Per Curiam:*

In 1971, the parties obtained a divorce, and, pursuant to the divorce decree, appellant was to pay respondent, in partial settlement of her alimony and community property rights, $1,000 per month, commencing July 1, 1971, until the sum of $10,000 had been paid. Respondent received no payments and, on November 29, 1977, moved the district court to reduce the arrearages to judgment. The district court granted the motion as to $5,000 of the arrearages, holding that recovery of the remainder was barred by the six-year limitation on actions contained in NRS 11.190.

1. Appellant’s contention that NRS 11.190 bars recovery of the entire $10,000 is without merit. The six-year period prescribed by that statute commenced to run against each installment as it became due, not from the date of the divorce decree. *See*Brown v. Vonsild, 91 Nev. 646, 541 P.2d 528 (1975).

2. We also reject the contention that the district court had no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief because of a pending appeal in the case. This matter was entirely collateral to and independent from that part of the case taken up by appeal, and in no way affected the merits of the appeal. *See*Osborn v. Riley, 331 So.2d 268 (Ala. 1976); Dear v. Locke, 262 N.E.2d 27 (Ill.App. 1970); *cf.*East Standard M. Co. v. Devine, 59 Nev. 134, 81 P.2d 1068 (1938). As noted, we deem briefing by respondent unnecessary and oral argument unwarranted. Under these circumstances, we deny respondent’s motion for an attorney’s fee to contest the appeal. Accordingly, this appeal shall stand submitted and, in the absence of reversible error, we ORDER this appeal dismissed.

*

This opinion was filed, as an unpublished order, June 7, 1978. Because of the paucity of published authority on the issues, we have been requested to publish the order as an opinion.
**Exhibit32.2**

# ** **

# **Certification of theChief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**AsAdopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of International Multifoods Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ended August 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John E. Byom, the SeniorVice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, herebycertifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of 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, for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
|                         | /s/  John E. Byom                                                 |
|------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         | **John E. Byom**                                                  |
|                         | **Senior  Vice President, Finance & Chief Financial Officer** |
|                         |                                                              |
|                         |                                                              |
| Date:  October 10, 2003 |                                                              |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1





|                                             
|---------------------------------------------
|Certification of CEO and CFO                 
|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 on Form 10-KSB of Shelter Properties II (the "Partnership"), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Stephen B. Waters, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, 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 his 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.





| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/Martha L. Long      
| | Name: Martha L. Long   
| | Date: March 31, 2008   
| |                        
| | /s/Stephen B. Waters   
| | Name: Stephen B. Waters
| | Date: March 31, 2008   





This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 18

- 00885

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.S.A. and A.S.A., Minor Children

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 1794

- CV

- C

Honorable Thomas Nathaniel Stuckey, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order is AFFIRMED.

Appellant is unable to afford to pay costs of court. No costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED April 24, 2019.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6416

In Re: ANDRE LAMAR WOODY, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:07-cv-00017) Submitted: May 25, 2007 Decided: June 1, 2007 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Lamar Woody, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Andre Lamar Woody petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his motion for reconsideration. He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act and permission to file his petition in forma pauperis. We find there has been no undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, although we grant Woody’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny his petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
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



The undersigned executive officer of the registrant hereby certifies that this Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained herein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the registrant.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|/s/ Steven R. Lewis                  
|Steven R. Lewis                      
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|Date:  September 29, 2003
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the six
months ended June 30, 2009 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Pawelek, Chief Executive
Officer of South Texas Oil Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, 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:
      August 14, 2009
              
              /s/
      Michael J. PawelekMichael
      J. PawelekChief
      Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION  I, John Swallow, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Timberline Resources Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statements 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;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.   Date: May 15, 2007  /s/ John Swallow _______________________ John Swallow (CEO, Principal Financial Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors)
Exhibit 10.2

            

          

          

        

        

        

        

      

      23/2/2022

      Partner Communications Company Ltd.

      8 Amal Street

      Afeq Industrial Park

      Rosh-Ha’ayin 48103

      Israel

      

      

      Dear Sirs:

       

      

      On behalf of BDO Ziv Haft Consulting & Management Ltd, Amot BDO House Building 46- 48 Menachem Begin Av. Tel-Aviv (the “Consultant”), I hereby confirm that the Consultant has reviewed the
        information set forth in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2021 (the “Form 20-F”), for the financial statements of Partner Communications Company Ltd., under Note 4(a)(2) " Assessing the recoverable amount for
        impairment tests of non-financial assets ", Note 4(3)" Assessing the recoverable amount for impairment tests of goodwill ",and Note 13 "Impairment tests" and Item 5A.1d " Impairment tests "  in the Form 20-F all with respect to testing for
        impairment of assets and the results thereof.

      

      

      The Consultant hereby confirms the information referred to above and consents to being named in the Form 20-F as an “expert”.

      

      

      BDO Consulting

      Name: Moti Dattelkramer 

      Title: Partner

      Signature: ___/s/_______
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15D0183. JOHNNY BRETT GREGORY v. J. STEPHEN SCHUSTER,

JUDGE.

Johnny Brett Gregory, a prison inmate, seeks to vacate an order entered in a

civil action for damages. The order, which was entered on July 28, 2011, granted the

defendant’s motion to have UCC documents filed by Gregory removed from the

transaction registry. We lack jurisdiction.

1

An application for discretionary appeal must be filed within 30 days of the

entry of the order to be appealed. OCGA § 5-6-35 (d); Hill v. State, 204 Ga. App.

582 (420 SE2d 393) (1992). Gregory, however, filed his case more than three years

after the entry of the trial court’s order. For this reason, this application for

discretionary appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Gregory originally filed his case in the Supreme Court, which ordered that the

case be re-docketed as a discretionary application and transferred to this Court. Even

utilizing the date provided on the proof of service supplied by Gregory, October 2,

2014, his appeal is nonetheless untimely. 

12/22/2014

December 22, 2014
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5135 

To provide for congressional approval of national monuments in Oregon, 

restrictions on the use of national monuments, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Mr. WALDEN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for congressional approval of national monuments 

in Oregon, restrictions on the use of national monuments, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ES4 TABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS IN 

5 OREGON. 

6 The proviso of the last sentence of the first section 

7 of the Act of September 14, 1950 (64 Stat. 849, chapter 

8 950; 16 U.S.C. 431a), is amended by inserting ‘‘or Or9 egon’’ after ‘‘Wyoming’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5135 IH

1 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS ON THE EXTENSION OR ESTABLISH2 MENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

3 The Act of June 8, 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431 et seq.) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 431), by striking 

6 ‘‘SEC. 2. That the’’ and inserting the following: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 2. DESIGNATION OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS. 

8 ‘‘After obtaining congressional approval of the pro9 posed national monument and certifying compliance with 

10 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 

11 4321 et seq.) with respect to the proposed national monu12 ment, the’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

14 ‘‘SEC. 5. RESTRICTIONS ON PUBLIC USE. 

15 ‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement 

16 any restrictions on the public use of a national monument 

17 until the expiration of an appropriate review period (as 

18 determined by the Secretary of the Interior) providing for 

19 public input and congressional approval.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

December 29, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00474

- CV

Raymond MONTES, Appellant

v.

Rudolfo Buentello MONTES,

Appellee

From the 454th Judicial District Court

, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19

- 03

- 25678

- CV The Hono rable Daniel J. Kindred , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee’s brief was due by December 28, 2020. On that day, appellee filed a motion requesting a forty

- five day extension of time to file his brief. After consideration, we GRANT appellee’s motion and ORDER appellee to file his brief by February 11, 2021

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 29th day of December, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
#### ROBERT G. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. PATRICIA JANE JOHNSON, Respondent.

No. 7325

July 17, 1974

524 P.2d 544

*271
      *George E. Graziadei*and *Jeffrey D. Sobel,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Rose, Norwood & Edwards, Ltd.,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

A divorce decree awarded the mother, Patricia, custody of seven children, provided for their support, and ordered the father also to pay the college expenses of each child. Subsequently, the mother moved the court for an order to compel payment for the expenses of the oldest child who was attending college. The motion was supported by informational letters from deans of the college as to the child’s academic standing, and by the child’s written statement of expenses. The father, his counsel, and the mother’s counsel appeared at the hearing on the motion. No objection was made to the form or content of the letters and statement offered in support of the motion. The court entered judgment against the father for college expenses.

On this appeal it is asserted, for the first time, that the district court had no right to consider the supportive papers since they were not in affidavit form. The objection comes too late. His acquiescence below waived any right to later complain. *272Grouse Cr. Ranches v. Budget Financial Corp., 87 Nev. 419, 425, 488 P.2d 917 (1971); Scapecchi v. Harold’s Club, 78 Nev. 290, 297, 371 P.2d 815 (1962).

Affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Franklin Carl Jones v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00827

- CR

Trial court case number: 977894

Trial court: 185th District Court of Harris County

We dismissed this appeal for want of jurisdiction on October 4, 2012. On October 10, 2012, appellant filed a “Motion for Extention [sic] of Time to File Appellant’s Brief.” On November 5, 2012, appellant filed another “Motion for Extension of Tim e to Prepare Brief,” accompanied by a letter to the Clerk of this Court. In the letter, appellant states that he has enclosed “a motion for extension of time and to file his motion for reconsideration.” Appellant then “pray[s] that this time of extension be granted to finish [his] brief and motion for extension of time to file [his] motion for reconsideration.”

Although appellant does not request an extension of time to file a motion for rehearing or
for reconsideration in the motion, we construe the lett er as a motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 49.8.

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing. See id. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is due on or before December 3, 2012.

Further, we DISMISS appellant’s “Motion for Extention [sic] of Time to File Appellant’s Brief” and “Motion for Extension of Time to Prepare Brief” as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 16, 2012
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

F.C., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE,

Revere, MA, Employer 

_________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0993

Issued: July 23, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Daniel B. Shapiro, Esq., for the appellant1

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On June 17, 2021 appellant, through counsel, filed a timely appeal from a December 18, 

2020 merit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of 

the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 21-0993.

In a letter dated July 1, 2021, counsel requested that the appeal be dismissed.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that counsel’s request for the 

dismissal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 

 

1

In all cases in which a representative has been authorized in a matter before the Board, no claim for a fee for legal 

or other service performed on appeal before the Board is valid unless approved by the Board. 20 C.F.R. § 501.9(e). 

No contract for a stipulated fee or on a contingent fee basis will be approved by the Board. Id. An attorney or 

representative’s collection of a fee without the Board’s approval may constitute a misdemeanor, subject to fine or 

imprisonment for up to one year or both. Id.; see also 18 U.S.C. § 292. Demands for payment of fees to a 

representative, prior to approval by the Board, may be reported to appropriate authorities for investigation.
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the dismissal of the appeal is 

granted. The appeal docketed as No. 21-0993 is dismissed.

Issued: July 23, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
----

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-258/05)

(2005/C 229/59)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt, residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the recognition of his psychological and emotional problems as an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations. He claims infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, together with the infringement of rights of the defence, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, transparency and legal certainty. He also claims a procedural error.

----
----

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 of 21 April 2004 determining the extent to which applications lodged in April 2004 for import rights in respect of frozen beef intended for processing may be accepted

(Official Journal of the European Union L 116 of 22 April 2004)

In the contents and on page 28 in the title:

for:

               ‘Commission Regulation (EC) No 745/2004 ...’,

read:

               ‘Commission Regulation No 943/2004 ...’.

----