alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-10-0203-CV 

 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 AT AMARILLO 

 PANEL B 

 JULY 7, 2010 

 ______________________________ 

 LIN’S RESTAURANT, INC. 

Appellant 

 V. 

 JAC COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION, LLC 

AND TOJI ENDO, 

Appellees 

________________________________ 

 FROM THE 237th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

 NO. 2009-547,229; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, PRESIDING 

 _______________________________ 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

 _______________________________ 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK , JJ. 

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss. Without passing on the merits of the 

case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and 

dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant’s request, no motion for 

rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Brian Quinn 

 Chief Justice
#### STATE v. HARDY

No. 7.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 67.

Appeal dismissed ex mero motu for lack of substantial constitutional question 11 January 1977.
Exhibit 32.1


            Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer


The undersigned, Chairman, President and Treasurer, of Jaco Electronics, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, that: (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2005 (the "Quarterly Report") accompanying
this certification fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the
information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of
the dates and for the periods presented as required by such report. The
foregoing certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities
as principal executive officer of the Company, my own due diligence and
representations made by certain other members of the Company's senior
management.

Date:  November 14, 2005

                            /s/ Joel H. Girsky
                            --------------------------------------------------
                            Joel H. Girsky
                            Chairman, President and Treasurer
                            (Principal Executive Officer)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Juan Carlos MADRIGAL-PINEDA, also known as Miguel Torres, also known as Roberto Hernandez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-51201.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 21, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Madrigal-Pineda raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE JUNE 30,
1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN IES UTILITIES INC.'S FORM 10-Q AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  CERTAIN
ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PRIOR PERIOD AMOUNTS AS PART OF THE RESTATEMENT
TO REFLECT THE POOLING OF INTERESTS TRANSACTION.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CIK>  0000052485
<NAME> IES UTILITIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,344,001
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     79,954
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         102,088
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        10,273
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 195,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,732,033
<COMMON>                                        33,427
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      279,042
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            221,622
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 534,091
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     18,320
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           517,265
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               5,000
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 145,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      140
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                     13,816
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                13,923
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 484,478
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,732,033
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      396,021
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            14,649<F1>
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     336,792
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     336,792<F1>
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         59,229
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (763) 
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  58,466
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        25,075
<NET-INCOME>                                    18,742
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        457
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   18,285
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        28,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       37,780
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          77,877
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F2>
<FN>
<F1> Income tax expense is not included in Operating Expenses in the Consolidated
Statements of Income.
<F2> Earnings per share of common stock is not reflected because all common shares
are held by Interstate Energy Corporation.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### MAINE SAVINGS BANK v. Jane CHEE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Submitted on Briefs June 14, 1990.

Decided July 11, 1990.

William P. Shumaker, Verrill & Dana, Portland, for plaintiff.

Lee H. Bals, Friedman & Babcock, Portland, for defendant.

Before ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD and COLLINS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Jane Chee appeals a summary judgment entered in Superior Court (Kennebec County, *Brody, C.J.)*on the complaint of the plaintiff, Maine Savings Bank, for foreclosure of a real estate mortgage. As the only issue on appeal Chee contends that the court erred in denying her request for a continuance and granting summary judgment in reliance on the Bank’s supplementary affidavit. We affirm the judgment.

Both in the Superior Court and before us, Chee presents a singularly unpersuasive argument. She claims that she should be allowed a further opportunity to respond to the Bank’s supplemental affidavit because it contained evidence of prior notice to her of the Bank’s election to exercise the acceleration clause of a promissory note secured by the mortgage. She argues that the supplemental affidavit raised the issue of acceleration for the first time just three days before the hearing on summary judgment. Her argument fails for two reasons. First, the evidence of notice is unnecessary to support the judgment because the promissory note contains a waiver of notice of acceleration. *See*11 M.R.S.A. *§ 3-511*(1964). Second, the allegations of the complaint constituted a sufficient pleading that acceleration had occurred. *See Strong v. Stoneham Co-op. Bank,*357 Mass. 662, 667, 260 N.E.2d 646, 649 (1970).

Because we conclude that Chee could not reasonably have expected to prevail, and that her appeal is frivolous and instituted primarily for the purpose of delay, we impose sanctions authorized by M.R.Civ.P. 76(f).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Reasonable attorney fees and treble costs awarded to plaintiff.

Remanded to the Superior Court for assessment of plaintiff’s reasonable attorney fees on this appeal.

All concurring.
#### STATE v. GARRETT

No. 97 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 367.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 6 January 1970.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

L.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Hartford, CT, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0678

Issued: May 25, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se,

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On March 14, 2022 the Clerk of the Appellate Boards inadvertently assigned Docket No. 

22-0678 to a purported appeal from a decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs 

(OWCP).

The Board, having duly considered this matter, notes thatsection 501.3(a) of the Board’s 

Rules of Procedure provides that a “person adversely affected by a final decision of the Director 

[of OWCP], or his or her authorized Representative, may file for review of such decision by the 

Board.”

1

 Appellant checked the box on an OWCP “APPEAL REQUEST FORM,” indicating that 

she was requesting an oral hearing before a representative of OWCP’s Branch of Hearings and 

Review. Appellant did not state any factual and legal argument in favor of a Board appeal or 

indicate that she was in fact filing an appeal.2 Thus, as it was not her intention to file an appeal 

with this Board from a final decision of OWCP, it was error to docket the appeal. The Board thus 

finds that neither a “person adversely affected” by a final OWCP decision, nor an “authorized 

Representative,” has filed an application for review by the Board of a final decision issued by 

1

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(a).

2

Id. at § 501.3.
2

OWCP. As such, there is no valid appeal before the Board and Docket No. 22-0678 must be 

dismissed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0678 is dismissed.

Issued: May 25, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 5, 2021

No. 04-20-00577-CV

Clarissa Nicole LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

Alberto Luis CAVAZOS,

Appellee

From the County Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20-02-60230-CV

Honorable Michael Ventura Garcia, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On December 30, 2020, we ordered appellant to file written proof that she properly 

requested the court reporter to prepare the record by designating the portions of the proceedings 

and the exhibits to be included. In that order, we informed the court reporter that she must file 

the record no later than thirty days after appellant filed her written proof. That same day, 

appellant filed written proof that she requested the record on November 20, 2020. Accordingly, 

we ORDER the court reporter to file the reporter’s record by January 29, 2021. Further 

extensions of time will be disfavored.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of January, 2021.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
# C_2007212EN.01000101.xml

| 11.9.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4714 — Oaktree/Duquesne/TI Automotive)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 212/01)

On 28 June 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4714. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4714. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### TOWNSHIP OF PENSAUKEN, PROSECUTOR, v. STATE BOARD OF TAXES AND ASSESSMENT ET AL., DE-FENDANTS.

Submitted October 16, 1931

Decided December 10, 1931.

Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.

For the prosecutor, *Albert E. Scheflen.*

For the defendants, *Howard L. Miller.*

Per Curiam.

This writ brings before us for review the judgment of the state board of taxes and assessment, of January 27th, 1931, reducing the assessment for taxing purposes for the year 1930 of the property of Wm. Cramp *&*Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, located at Petty’s Island, Pensauken township, county of Camden, from a total of $63,400 as fixed by the county board of taxation, being $62,400 upon land and $1,000 on improvements, to a total of $50,000 being $49,000 on land and $1,000 on improvements.

The township assessor had made a total assessment of $90,200; $83,200 on land and $7,000 on improvements. *17From this the owner appealed to the county board of taxation, receiving the reduction before referred to and from this judgment of the county board both the owner and the township of Pensauken appeaLed to the state board.

Three reasons are advanced and argued by the prosecutor why the judgment under review should be set aside—•

1. The findings of the defendant, state board of taxes and assessment, upon which judgment has been entered, reducing the assessment of the defendant taxpayer, are not supported by the weight of the evidence.

*2.*The unsupported testimony of H. B. McCollum, a witness for the defendant taxpayer, does not justify the reduction made by said board in the valuation placed on said land for the year 1930.

3. The findings and judgment of said board are against the clear weight of the evidence produced before it.

Thus the question presented is, solely—is the finding of the board supported by the weight of the proofs before it?

Our consideration of the proofs brings us to the conclusion that by a clear preponderance thereof the findings of the board were justified.

The judgment under review is therefore affirmed and the writ dismissed, with costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

          - [F.C.S.C. Meeting Notice No. 6-05] 

The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 504) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of meetings for the transaction of Commission business and other matters specified, as follows: 

# Date and Time:

 Thursday, November 17, 2005, at 10 a.m. 

# Subject Matter:

 Issuance of Proposed Decisions in claims against Albania. 

# Status: 

Open. 

All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Washington, DC. Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Administrative Officer, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 600 E Street, NW., Room 6002, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-6988. 

Mauricio J. Tamargo, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 05-22303 Filed 11-3-05; 5:09 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4410-01-P
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-20032

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER ANEIDER ALVAREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Texas

(CR-H-94-195-2)

______________________________________________

April 18, 1996

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Javier Aneider Alvarez argues that the district court clearly

erred in denying him an adjustment for his minor role in the

offense.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

find no reversible error. In so concluding we note that the fact

that a codefendant is more culpable does not automatically qualify

a defendant for either minor or minimal participant status. See
2

United States v. Thomas, 963 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1992). Further,

the district court is not required to accept a defendant's selfserving statements about his role in the offense. United States v.

Brown, 54 F.3d 234, 241 (5th Cir. 1995). Appellant's admissions

that he had transported a significant amount of drugs and that he

was responsible for picking up the funds due in a drug deal worth

one-half million dollars indicates that he was a trusted member of

a drug organization rather than a mere courier. See United States

v. Thomas, 963 F.2d at 65.

AFFIRMED.
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 Annual Report of BSD Medical Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Dennis Bradley, Controller (Principal Financial Officer) of the Company,
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 and belief:

         (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 result of
              operations of the Company.



/s/ Dennis Bradley
----------------------------------------
Dennis Bradley
Controller (Principal Financial Officer)
November 29, 2006
#### HIGHWAY COMM. v. LANE

No. 40 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 507.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 September 1969.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> 
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Jostens Inc.
condensed consolidated financial statements as of and for the period ended
December 31, 1995, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          (5,563)
<SECURITIES>                                      5,985
<RECEIVABLES>                                   109,925
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (9,020)
<INVENTORY>                                     116,596
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                265,164
<PP&E>                                          188,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                (120,448)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  412,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           230,986
<BONDS>                                          53,741
<COMMON>                                         12,864
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                       97,153
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    412,485
<SALES>                                         263,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                263,533
<CGS>                                           119,639
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   119,639
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                116,866
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2,476
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  24,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                     10,066
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              14,486
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     14,486
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       .35   
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       .35
        
                                  


</TABLE>
#### WILSON v. DEVELOPMENT CO.

No. 45 PC.

Case below: 5 N.C. App. 600.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 18 September 1969.