alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cr-00012-MP-AK

ERIC KIMBLE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 5, Mr. Kimble's Motion for Approval of State

Order to Transport Defendant. Mr. Kimble wishes to be allowed to attend a case management

conference in state court, so that the state may proceed with his prosecution. Judge David A.

Glant of the Eighth Judicial Circuit, in and for Alachua County, has issued an Order to Transport

Defendant for Mr. Kimble to personally appear on Monday, May 3, 2010, at 2:00 p.m. for a Case

Management Conference. The Alachua County Sheriff’s Office is prepared to transport Mr.

Kimble, and to be responsible for any costs incurred while he is in their custody. The Assistant

U. S. Attorney does not object to this request. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. The Second Motion for Approval of State Transport, Doc. 14, is GRANTED. 

2. The United States Marshal Service will release Mr. Kimble into the custody of the

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office and/or their designated agent, for the purpose of

appearing at the May 3, 2010, 2:00 p.m. case management conference. 
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:10-cr-00012-MP-AK

3. The United States Marshal Service is further directed to make clear to the

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office and/or their designated agent that Mr. Kimble

must be returned to federal custody on the same day, May 3, 2010. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2010

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge
#### STATE v. REID

No. 168 P.C.

Case below: 38 N.C. App. 547.

Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH In the seventeen ( 17 ) causes listed immediately hereunder the following was entered: Pursuant to and in compliance with an Order of the Supreme Court of Texas, signed January 27, 2015 , Misc. Docket No. 1 5 - 9022 , it is ordered that these causes be transferred to the Eighth Court of Appeals at El Paso , Texas, and that the Clerk of this Court certify all orders made in this Court, and transmit all records and papers in said causes to the Clerk of the Eighth Court of Appeals. CASE NUMBER STYLE OF CASE COUNTY 1. 2 - 15 - 001 - CR Damon Markieth Asberry v State of Texas Tarrant 2. 2 - 15 - 002 - CR Jesse Sanchez v. State of Texas Tarrant 3. 2 - 15 - 006 - CR Shane Thomas Dowdy v. State of Texas Tarrant 4. 2 - 15 - 007 - CR Jason Killian v. State of Texas Hood 5. 2 - 15 - 008 - CR Eduardo Rael v. State of Texas Tarrant 6. 2 - 15 - 013 - CR Savanna McIntare v. State of Texas Hood 7. 2 - 15 - 014 - CR Dustin Shane Graydon v. State of Texas Tarrant 8. 2 - 15 - 016 - CR David Lewis Tipton v. State of Texas Tarrant 9. 2 - 15 - 005 - CV Western Hills Harbor v. Todd Baker Hood 10. 2 - 15 - 008 - CV Kelly Morris Wheeling v. Everett Thomas Wheeling Parker 11. 2 - 15 - 011 - CV RZAQ, Inc. and Bader Obeid v. Mohawk Servicing, LLC Tarrant 12. 2 - 15 - 013 - CV Harold A. Rumzek v. Bryan D. Lucchesi Tarrant 13. 2 - 15 - 0 18 - CV In the Matter of E.H. Tarrant 14. 2 - 15 - 020 - CV Tanda Stringfellow v. Jeffrey Shane Stringfellow Cooke 15. 2 - 15 - 021 - CV Eusebio Palacios v. Jayaben Patel Tarrant 16. 2 - 15 - 022 - CV Daniel Smith v. Schwartz Properties Denton 17. 2 - 15 - 023 - CV Holly Gail Crampton v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline Wichita I, DEBRA SPISAK, Clerk of the Second Court of Appeals at Fort Worth, Texas, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of this Court's Order entered February 19 , 2015 , transferring the above seventeen ( 17 ) causes from this Court to the Eighth Court of Appeals at El Paso , Texas as it appears in Minute Book volume 80 , page 438 - 439

.TRANSFER ORDER

FEBRUARY 19 , 2015 PAGE 2

2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby certify and affix the seal of the Second Court of Appeals at Fort Worth, Texas this 19 th da y of February, 201 5

. DEBRA SPISAK, CLERK SECOND COURT OF APPEALS FORT WORTH, TEXAS
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
February 15, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00066

- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF J. A.J ., a child,
From the 57th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2021

- PA

- 00153 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### ORDER This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating appellant’s parental rights which must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. The trial court signed a final or der of termination on January 12, 2022. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due by February 1, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.1(b). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due by February 16, 2022. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 26.3. Appellant’s notice of appeal is file

- stamped February 2, 2022

— within the time allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acti ng i n good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the pre decessor to Rule 26). But “once the period for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id

. Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed but within the fif teen

- day grace period,
we ORDER appellant to file a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner by February 2 5, 2022 . If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be di smissed for want of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of February, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ , Clerk of Court
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-14985-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7054 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM WOODREW SMITH, JR., a/k/a Bubba,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CR-01-16; CA-03-387-2)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Woodrew Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford

Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Woodrew Smith, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to

appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his motion

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. 

DISMISSED
# C_2011261EN.01000401.xml

| 3.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/4

---

Notice for the attention of the persons and entities to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria apply

2011/C 261/04

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons and entities that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2011/522/CFSP (1), and in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) No 878/2011 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons and entities that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/273/CFSP and in Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria. The grounds for designations of those persons and entities appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the web-sites in Annex III to Council Regulation (EU) No 442/2011, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 6 of the Regulation).

The persons and entities concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG K Coordination |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG K Coordination

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons and entities concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's Decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 228, 3.9.2011, p. 16.

1

(2)  OJ L 228, 3.9.2011, p. 1.

2

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas September 15, 2022 No. 04-22-00270-CV John P. BOERSCHIG , Appellant/Cross-appellee

v. RIO GRANDE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ,

Appellee/Cross-appellant, From the 63rd Judicial District Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 4205 Honorable Roland Andrade, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R The reporter’s record was originally due August 8, 2022. We granted the court reporter’s first request for an extension of time, extending the deadline to file the record until September 12, 2022. On September 14, 2022, the court reporter filed a notification of late record requesting a second extension of time. After consideration, we GRANTthe request and ORDER the court reporter to file the record by October 12, 2022
.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of September, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.2    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002   In connection with the Quarterly Report of Little Squaw Gold Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 Little Squaw Gold Mining Company.    /s/ Ted R. Sharp DATE:  August 17, 2007 Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer   A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Little Squaw Gold Mining Company and will be retained by Little Squaw Gold Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.           1
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Goldrich Mining Company, (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard R. Walters, President and Principal Executive 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:



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 Goldrich Mining Company.







/s/ Richard R. Walters                    DATE:  August 14, 2008

Richard R. Walters, President





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Goldrich Mining Company and will be retained by Goldrich Mining Company to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE v. WOODY

No. 187P82.

Case below: 56 N.C. App. 467.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 22 April 1982.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE, DIVISION

MARIA PARSONS and MICHAEL PARSONS,

MARY ANN JONES and JAMES ARTHUR 

JONES, SR., SHANTELL SHAMEA JONES, 

Individually, and as the Parent and Natural 

Guardian of CARLOS UDAE STEPHENSON, 

AARON JONES STEPHENSON, and OZIAH 

CARSON JONES, Minor Children, SANDRA 

WATTS KENNEDY and KEVIN KENNEDY, 

Individually, and as the Parents and Natural 

Guardians of MURIELLE KEELY KENNEDY, a

Minor Child, and FARINDA OSTEEN, 

Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons 

who are Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00071-MP-GRJ

KOPPERS INC., f/k/a KOPPERS INDUSTRIES, 

INC., CABOT CORPORATION, and BEAZER 

EAST, INC.

Defendants.

KOPPERS INC.’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Koppers Inc. (“Koppers”) submits this Corporate 

Disclosure Statement and states as follows:

1. Koppers is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koppers Holdings, Inc., a 

publicly traded corporation.

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 16 Filed 09/22/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Date: September 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Dennis P. Waggoner

OF COUNSEL:

Robert L. Shuftan (ILBN 3124475) 

Northern District Bar application to be 

submitted

shuftan@wildman.com

David A. Kanter (ILBN 6187653) 

Northern District Bar application to be 

submitted

kanter@wildman.com

Brent R. Austin (ILBN 6220501) 

Northern District Bar application to be 

submitted

austin@wildman.com

Paul K. Freeborn (ILBN 6277489) 

Northern District Bar application to be 

submitted

freeborn@wildman.com

Megan C. Millirons (ILBN 6290249) 

Northern District Bar application to be 

submitted

millirons@wildman.com

Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP

225 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800

Chicago, IL 60606

Phone: 312-201-2000

Fax: 312-201-2555

Benjamin H. Hill, III (FBN 094585)

bhill@hwhlaw.com

Dennis P. Waggoner (FBN 509426)

dwaggoner@hwhlaw.com

HILL, WARD & HENDERSON P.A.

101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700

P.O. Box 2231

Tampa, FL 33602

Phone: (813) 221-3900

Fax: (813) 221-2900

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

KOPPERS INC. and BEAZER EAST, 

INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on September 22, 2010 I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a 

notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record in this action.

s/ Dennis P. Waggoner

Case 1:10-cv-00071-MP -GRJ Document 16 Filed 09/22/10 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David A. Van Vliet, Interim President and Interim Chief Executive
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:



| | (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: March 25, 2010 |  | /s/    David A. Van
Vliet                            
|                     |  | David A. Van Vliet                                   
|                     |  | Interim President and Interim Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)                        

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by
Section 906, 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.

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as our exhibit to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and shall not be deemed to be considered filed as part of the
Quarterly Report Form 10-Q.
Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT   Document 15    Filed 04/05/10   Page 1 of 1
#### John Kolacki, as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Kolacki, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*American Sugar Refining Company, Respondent.

*Kolacki*v. *American Sugar Refining Co.,*173 App. Div. 942, affirmed.

(Submitted June 12, 1918;

decided July 12, 1918.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 28, 1916, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and granting a new trial in an action under the Employers’ Liability Act to recover for the death of plaintiff’s intestate alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of defendant, his *592employer. The intestate entered an elevator well in one of defendant's buildings to pick up some bags which had fallen therein. The elevator descended, struck him and caused injuries resulting in his death. It was contended that defendant was negligent in not properly guarding the elevator well and in fading to provide a warning when the elevator was about to descend. The Appellate Division reversed, a judgment in favor of plaintiff on the ground that the proof showed that the decedent knew- of the well and of its use, and that he entered it without making any provision for protection against the elevator as it descended.

*Vine H. Smith*for appellant.

*■Bertrand L. Pettigrew*and *Walter L. Glenney*for respondent.

Order affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. «L, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.