alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### DONNA G. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. WILLIAM L. JOHNSON, Respondent.

No. 7476

May 15, 1975

535 P.2d 160

*Earl & Earl,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Johns & Johns,*of Las Vegas, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

The marriage of Donna G. Johnson and William L. Johnson, appellant and respondent respectively, was dissolved by decree of divorce entered on March 5, 1971. The temporary custody of the couple’s minor children was awarded to William. After modifications of the divorce decree were ordered, a final modification was ratified, confirmed, approved and entered May 8, 1973, awarding permanent custody of two of the minor children, then ages 16 and 10, to William. A third child had married since the original divorce decree and before the final modification.

Initially appellant attempts to challenge the order denying *300her objections to findings of fact and conclusions of law entered below. That order is not an appealable “special order made after final judgment” within the purview of NRAP 3A(b). French v. French, 91 Nev. 248, 533 P.2d 1357 (1975); Securities Inv. Co. v. Donnelley, 89 Nev. 341, 513 P.2d 1238 (1973).

The only cognizable issue raised by this appeal' from the divorce decree and subsequent modifying order is whether the award of custody of the children to the father was proper in light of the “tender years” doctrine enunciated by this court in Peavey v. Peavey, 85 Nev. 571, 460 P.2d 110 (1969). In *Peavey*we held that “children of tender years belong to their mother in the absence of particular circumstances establishing that she is unfit.” Id. at 573. The children there involved were aged 5 and 3, and neither parent could be deemed unfit, upon a review of the record. Thus, the mother was awarded custody.

In Smith v. Smith, 90 Nev. 422, 529 P.2d 209 (1974), we held that children 8 and 10 years old were not of such delicate age and condition as necessarily to come within the “tender years” doctrine, and we said: “. . . [Wjhether a child is of ‘tender years’ cannot be mechanically defined. The determination is subject to the discretionary powers of the trial court in the particular facts of each case.” Here the district court could permissibly find that the children were not of tender years when the final order was entered on May 8, 1973.

Furthermore, the district court found that they were satisfied with their father as custodian, and that his care, custody and control was for their “very best interest.” No clear abuse of the district court’s discretion has been shown. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 90 Nev. 209, 523 P.2d 1 (1974). The divorce decree and order of modification appealed from are affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

In re: MARCELO BRITTO GOMEZ,

Debtor,

______________________________

CARTER STEPHENS,

Appellant,

 v.

MARCELO BRITTO GOMEZ; UNITED 

STATES TRUSTEE,

Appellees.

No. 14-60027

BAP No. 13-1282

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Ninth Circuit

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel

Taylor, Pappas, and Kurtz, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.

Carter Stephens appeals pro se from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 4 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 14-60027

(“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order denying reconsideration 

of its order dismissing for failure to prosecute Stephens’s adversary proceeding. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo decisions of 

the BAP. Boyajian v. New Falls Corp. (In re Boyajian), 564 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th 

Cir. 2009). We vacate and remand.

A motions panel of the BAP limited the scope of Stephens’s appeal to the

bankruptcy court’s order denying Stephens’s motion for reconsideration. The 

panel applied the fourteen-day time limit to file a notice of appeal found in Federal 

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a), and observed that Stephens’s motion for 

reconsideration was not filed within fourteen days and, therefore, did not toll the 

time limit to file a notice of appeal as to the underlying order of dismissal, see Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 8002(b). The BAP erred in limiting the scope of Stephens’s appeal. 

See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058. Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 applies in 

adversary proceedings, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058, and because the bankruptcy court 

did not enter a separate judgment in the case, Stephens had 150 days from the entry 

of the order in the bankruptcy court’s docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c). Stephens 

timely filed his motion for reconsideration from the February 8, 2012 order 

dismissing the adversary proceeding, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), and timely appealed 
 3 14-60027

from both the dismissal order and from the order denying reconsideration. No 

tolling was required. 

Because the BAP did not reach the issue of whether the bankruptcy court 

properly dismissed Stephens’s adversary proceeding for failure to prosecute, we 

remand to the BAP to consider the issue in the first instance.

All pending motions are denied.

Each party shall bear its own costs in this appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

I.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, PORT ARTHUR POST 

OFFICE, Port Arthur, TX, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0517

Issued: February 26, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

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 February 17, 2021 appellant filed an appeal from a May 5, 2020 merit decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 21-0517.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.1 

For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s review 

authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of OWCP’s 

decision.2

The 180th day following the May 5, 2020 decision was November 1, 2020. As appellant 

did not file an appeal with the Board until February 17, 2021, more than 180 days after the May 5,

2020 OWCP decision, the Board finds that the appeal docketed as No. 21-0517 is untimely filed. 

The Board is without jurisdiction to review the appeal. Appellant has not offered a reason to 

 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8149; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a) (2009).

2

Id. at § 501.3(e).
2

explain the failure to timely file an appeal with supporting documentation sufficient to establish 

compelling circumstances.

The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date 

of their issuance.”

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-0517 is dismissed.

Issued: February 26, 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

 

3

Id. at § 501.6(d).
#### In the Matter of the Application of LINCOLN FITZGERALD For a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

No. 3515

February 2, 1948.

189 P.2d 352.

*Alan Bible,*Attorney General, *Geo. P. Annand*and *Homer Mooney,*Deputy Attorneys General, and *C. J. McFadden,*District Attorney of White Pine County, for Appellant.

*Gray & Horton,*of Ely, and *Wm. J. Cashill,*of Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Horsey, J.:

This case, and the attempted appeal and the motion to dismiss same, is, in all respects, similar, and a companion case, to case No. 3514 (65 Nev. 128, 189 P.2d 338), entitled, “In the matter of the application of Daniel Sullivan for a writ of habeas corpus,” which has this day been decided, and the opinion filed, and in which the questions involved have been fully discussed. Reference is made to that opinión for our determination of the similar questions involved in this appeal. Our determination and decision as to this attempted appeal must necessarily be the same as in case No. 3514. It follows that the motion of respondent, Lincoln Fitzgerald, to dismiss the appeal in the instant case should be granted. It is ordered, therefore, that this appeal be, and the same is hereby dismissed.

Eather, C. J., and Badt, J., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

 

 

 

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

 

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofInternational Aluminum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission(the “Report”), we the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that toour knowledge:

 

1.                           The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

 

 
| Date:    November 7, 2005 | RONALD L. RUDY                     |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                          | Ronald L. Rudy                     |
|                                          | President and                      |
|                                          | Chief Executive Officer            |
|                                          |                               |
|                                          |                               |
|                                          |                               |
| Date:    November 7, 2005 | MITCHELL K. FOGELMAN               |
|                                          | Mitchell K. Fogelman               |
|                                          | Senior Vice President—Finance |
|                                          | and Chief Financial  Officer       |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

----
#### LEPRECHAUN MINING AND CHEMICAL, INC., Appellant, v. WILMA GRIGOR, dba MERCURY SECRETARIAL SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 7565

March 12, 1975

532 P.2d 602

[Rehearing denied April 9, 1975]

*Gladstone & Zucker,*of Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Johns & Johns,*of Las Vegas, for Respondents.

*149OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

On December 2, 1970, the appellant corporation issued to Wilma Grigor a promissory note in the amount of $4,032.50, payable at $200.00 per month with 5 percent interest. The note represented unpaid compensation to Grigor for her past services as a secretary to the corporation. Payments were made on the note totaling $1,345.40, but then no further payments were forthcoming.

After Grigor sued for the balance owed on the note, the corporation responded that she had wrongfully disbursed corporation funds while she was serving as secretary and that the note therefore had been given without consideration.

The trial court ruled that the corporation failed to prove culpable misconduct on the part of Grigor. The evidence supports the ruling. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 89 Nev. 540, 516 P.2d 103 (1973). She followed company policy and the instructions given her by her superiors throughout. She is entitled to be paid for her services.

However, the trial court erred in computing interest at 7 percent when the note provided interest at 5 percent. Where the parties agreed to a rate of interest, a judgment rendered on such contract shall conform thereto. NRS 99.050(1); Jones v. Edwards, 49 Nev. 299, 245 P. 292 (1926).

Affirmed on the merits; remanded for recomputation of interest at the rate of 5 percent as provided in the note.
#### WESTERN STATES MINERALS CORP., A Utah Corporation, Appellant, v. ROBERT C. JONES, and GAIL A. JONES, Husband and Wife, Respondents.

No. 19697

April 2, 1991

807 P.2d 1392

(Replaces opinion issued March 7, 1991)

*E. Pierre Gezelin,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Davenport & Perry*and *Janet J. Berry,*Reno, for Respondents.

*117ORDER GRANTING REHEARING

On March 7, 1991, this court issued an opinion in the above-entitled matter, affirming the judgment of the district court. Western States Minerals Corp. v. Jones, (Adv. Opn. No. 19). Appellant has now petitioned this court for rehearing. Additionally, noting the public importance of the issues presented in this case, numerous Nevada employers and associations have moved this court for leave to participate on rehearing as amici curiae.

Having carefully reviewed the petition and motions pending in this matter, we have determined that rehearing is warranted and that the participation of amici curiae will assist in this court’s deliberations. Accordingly, we grant rehearing. The clerk of this court shall schedule this matter for reargument in June, 1991. Oral argument shall be limited to thirty (30) minutes.

Further, we grant the pending motions to participate on rehearing as amici curiae. Appellant and the amici shall have twenty (20) days from the date of this order to file briefs on rehearing. The amici, however, shall not be permitted to participate at the oral argument. Respondents shall have thirty (30) days thereafter within which to file a response. Finally, although we express no opinion as to the merits of arguments to be presented on rehearing, we deem it necessary to withdraw the opinion previously issued in this matter. Accordingly, we hereby direct the clerk of this court to publish this order in place of the withdrawn opinion.

It is so ORDERED.
**Exhibit 15.1**

To the Board of Directors and Shareholders of 

W&T Offshore, Inc. and Subsidiaries: 

We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-126251 and 333-126252) and Form S-3 (No. 333-132960) of W&T Offshore, Inc. of our report dated November 13,2006 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements of W&T Offshore, Inc. and Subsidiaries that is included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006. 

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

November 13, 2006
Exhibit 10.4



Exhibit 10.4  Amendment to Agreement with Research Capital, LLC



AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into this 22nd day of February, 2002, by
and between GenoMed, Inc., a Florida corporation (the "Company") and Research
Capital LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Consultant").

WITHNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the parties hereto have entered into a Consulting Agreement dated
November 9, 2001 (the "Agreement");

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in certain respects.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

        1. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the
meanings given to them in the Agreement.

        2. Notwithstanding any provision of the Agreement, in lieu of any
consideration payable by the Company to the Consultant under the
Agreement, the Company shall issue promptly to the Consultant four
Million (4,000,000) shares of its common stock.

3. Except as otherwise explicitly provided herein, the Agreement shall remain
in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the
day and date first above written.

GENOMED, INC.                                    RESEARCH CAPITAL, LLC

By:/s/ David W. Moskowitz                        By:/s/ Carl Smith, III

Printed: David W. Moskowitz                      Printed: Carl Smith, III

Title: Chairman and CMO                          Title: CEO
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and result of operations of the Authority.

 
| By:                     | /s/ SHAWN S. SMYTH     |   |
|-------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Shawn S. Smyth          |                   |
| Chief Executive Officer |                   |
| May 15, 2008       |                   |
|                    |                   |
| By:                     | /s/ JOSEPH R. CALLAHAN |   |
| Joseph R. Callahan      |                   |
| Chief Financial Officer |                   |
| May 15, 2008       |                   |
|                         |                        |        |  |  |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the RiverRock Entertainment Authority and will be retained by the River RockEntertainment Authority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
**
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Permian Basin Royalty Trust (the“Trust”) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, 2023 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in itsindividual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

 
 (1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934, as amended; and 

 
 (2)
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Trust. 

 
  
ARGENT TRUST COMPANY,

TRUSTEE FORTHE

PERMIAN BASIN ROYALTY TRUST
Date: February 29, 2024  By: /s/ Jana Egeler   Jana Egeler   Vice President and Trust Administrator
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the PermianBasin Royalty Trust and will be retained by the Permian Basin Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entireity by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            9886
<SECURITIES>                                       993
<RECEIVABLES>                                    40475
<ALLOWANCES>                                       945
<INVENTORY>                                      37199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                106469
<PP&E>                                          353279
<DEPRECIATION>                                  104170
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  471337
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            77220
<BONDS>                                         255611
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           203
<OTHER-SE>                                       48014
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    471337
<SALES>                                        1602364
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                160264
<CGS>                                           107828
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   142200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1552)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               15902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3714
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (436)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit32**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersignedofficers does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuantto § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to such officers knowledge:

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of theAuthority.

 
| By:                                                           | /s/ SHAWN S. SMYTH    |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|--------|
| Shawn S. Smyth                                                |
| Chief Executive Officer                                       |
| May 15, 2007                                             |
|                                                          |
| By:                                                           | /s/ JACOB A. COUGHLIN |   |
| Jacob A. Coughlin                                             |
| Assistant Financial Controller (Principal Financial  Officer) |
| May 15, 2007                                             |

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the River RockEntertainment Authority and will be retained by the River Rock EntertainmentAuthority and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
**Exhibit 13.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 I, Nandan M. Nilekani, certify, pursuant to 18 USC. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Infosys Technologies Limited on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 20-F fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Infosys Technologies Limited.

Date: May 2, 2007

/s/ NANDAN M. NILEKANI **Nandan M. Nilekani***Chief Executive Officer*