alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00245-CV

Robert Thomas Baker, Appellant

v.

Michelle Whetstone-Baker, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 169TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 269,313-C, HONORABLE GORDON G. ADAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due to be filed on July 24, 2015. The

district clerk informed this Court’s clerk that appellant Robert Thomas Baker had not paid or made

arrangements to pay for the record. By letter dated August 7, 2015, this Court’s clerk requested a

response from appellant on this matter and warned that failure to respond by August 17, 2015 could

result in dismissal of the appeal. We did not receive a response and have not received any indication

that appellant has paid or made arrangements to pay for the record.

We dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution and failure to comply with a notice

from the clerk requiring a response within a specified time. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c).
 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: August 28, 2015

2
463 A.2d 29

#### Commonwealth v. Bethel, Appellant.

Submitted May 3, 1983.

Elaine DeMasse, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before McEWEN, MONTGOMERY and HOFFMAN, JJ.

The judgment of sentence of the learned Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court Judge. Marvin R. Halbert is affirmed.
Opinion issued May 21 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00962
- CV

——————————— JACOB MAGGARD AND YESSICA MAGGARD , INDIVIDUALLY AND

AS NEXT FRIENDS OF I.M. (A MINOR) , Appella nt s V. MEMORIAL HERMANN HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A MEMORIAL HERMANN TEXAS MEDICAL CENTER AND THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON , Appell e e s

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2023
- 00701

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants’ brief was due to be filed on January 23, 2024. On February 14, 2024, the Court issued a notice that the appeal might be dismissed unless2

appellants filed a brief or a motion for extension within 10 days of the date of the notice. Appellants d id not respond or file a brief or motion for extension. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Kelly and G oodman

.
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 Accelerated Building Concepts Corporation
      on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
      undersigned in his capacity as an officer of Accelerated Building Concepts
      Corporation, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      ss. 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 result of operations of Accelerated Buildings
      Concepts Corporation.





Date:
      April 14, 2008 /s/
              Bruce HarmonBruce
              HarmonInterim
                Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                  Financial Officer)
#### FADDEN, Appellant, *v.*BUTTE MINERS’ UNION NO. 1 et al., Respondents.

(No. 3,441.)

(Submitted November 14, 1914.

Decided December 12, 1914.)

[147 Pac. 620.]

*Appeal*— New *Trial Order*— Affirmance, *When.*

1. An order, general in terms, granting a motion for a new trial, the notice of intention to move for which specified all the statutory grounds, will not be disturbed on appeal where the record shows a sharp conflict in the evidence on the issue tried.

*Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Jeremiah J. Lynch, Judge.*

Action by Thomas Fadden against the Butte Miners’ Union No. 1 and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and from an order granting a new trial, he appeals.

Affirmed.

*Mr. Chas. G. Colly,*for Appellant, submitted a brief; *Mr. Jesse B. Boote,*of Counsel, argued the cause orally.

*Mr. William Meyer,*for Respondents, submitted a brief and argued the cause orally.

*105MR. JUSTICE SANNER

delivered the opinion of the court.

Thomas Padden brought this action in the district court of Silver Bow county against the Butte Miners ’ Union No. 1, Dennis Murphy, Joseph Penhall and John Hartigan, to recover damages for a malicious assault alleged to have been made by them upon him. The defendants, other than Murphy, stood upon a denial; Murphy coupled his denial with an affirmative plea to the effect that Padden, after maliciously assaulting Penhall, attempted to assault him (Murphy) and he, to protect himself, struck Padden. This was denied by the reply. The issues were tried to a jury who returned their verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon. Notice of intention to move for a new trial, specifying all the statutory grounds, was given and the motion itself was heard upon a bill of exceptions which embodied all the evidence. The motion was granted by an order general in its terms. This appeal is from that order, and our duty is to affirm it, if it can be upheld on any of the specified grounds.

We have read the record and can understand how the jury could return that the assault had been committed as alleged; [1] but it must be acknowledged that the testimony is sharply conflicting upon this point. The question in the first instance was for the jury, and, upon motion for new trial, for the judge who saw the witnesses on the stand. If he was satisfied, as he may have been, that the preponderance of the evidence was not with the plaintiff, it was his duty to set the verdict aside. With such an order made under such circumstances we may not interfere. *(Harrington*v. *Butte & Boston Min. Co.,*27 Mont. 1, 69 Pac. 102; *Kelly*v. *City of Butte,*43 Mont. 451, 117 Pac. 101.)

The order appealed from is therefore affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Mm Chief Justice Brantly and Mr. Justice Holloway concur.
PART 11
 ITEM 1
       Legal Proceedings
The Company is not presently a party to any litigation of any kind or
nature whatsoever, nor to the company's best knowledge and belief is any
litigation threatened or contemplated.

ITEM 2
        Change in Securities.
There has not been any material changes of the rights of holders of
registered securities, and working capital restrictions and other
limitations on the payment of dividends.

ITEM 3
        Defaults Upon Senior Securities.
There has not been any defaults on any senior Securities.

ITEM 4
        Submission of Matters to a vote of Security Holders.
 On December 16th, 1996 the annual meeting of the Company was held at the
 Company's principal office, at 1051-5th Avenue North in Naples Florida.
 Of the 4,655,310 shares outstanding, 3,501,215 were represented in person
 and by proxy. The sole purpose of the meeting was to re-elect Officers and
 Directors.
 The following officers and Directors were unanimously elected.
        Garfield Ricketts     Director/ Chairman/CEO
        Una M. Ricketts       Director/Secretary/Treasurer
        Karen Ricketts        Director
        Dan McCaslin          Vice President/Director (Ricketts Enterprises
                              International Inc. Only)

  There were no setlements or matters or solicitations under Rule 14a-11

  ITEM 5
         Other Matters

         None
  ITEM 6
        Exhibits and reports on Form 8-K

         NONE
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by  reference  in the  Registration  Statement
(333-81587) on Form S-8 of InnovaCom, Inc. of our report dated January 28, 2000,
except for Note 14, which is as of March 15, 2000,  relating to the consolidated
balance sheet of InnovaCom,  Inc. and  subsidiaries as of December 31, 1999, and
the related  statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity (deficit) and cash
flows for the years ended  December 31, 1999 and 1998,  which report  appears in
the December 31, 1999 annual report on Form 10-KSB of InnovaCom, Inc.


\S\HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP


HEIN + ASSOCIATES LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Orange, California
March 21, 2000
II

★(Star Print)

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2279

To authorize the addition of land to Sequoia National Park, and for other

purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 23, 2000

Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To authorize the addition of land to Sequoia National Park,

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. ADDITION TO SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—As soon as practicable after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior

6 shall acquire by donation, purchase with donated or appro7 priated funds, or exchange, all interest in and to the land

8 described in subsection (b) for addition to Sequoia

9 National Park, California.
2

S 2279 IS1S

1 (b) LAND ACQUIRED.—The land referred to in sub2 section (a) is the land depicted on the map entitled

3 ‘‘Dillonwood’’, numbered 102/80,044, and dated Sep4 tember 1999.

5 (c) ADDITION TO PARK.—On acquisition of the land

6 under subsection (a), the Secretary shall—

7 (1) add the land to Sequoia National Park;

8 (2) modify the boundaries of Sequoia National

9 Park to include the land; and

10 (3) administer the land as part of Sequoia

11 National Park in accordance with all applicable law

12 (including regulations).

Æ
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A2347. SCOTT J. GOLDEN v. THE STATE.

In June 2016, Scott J. Golden entered a negotiated guilty plea to criminal

attempt to commit child molestation as a lesser charge of aggravated child

molestation and was sentenced to serve 25 years in confinement. On April 19, 2019,

Golden filed a “Motion to Correct Scrivenor/Clerical Error,” in which he argued that

the Department of Correctionsmisunderstood the final disposition entered by the trial

court as its sentence computation report stated that he was guilty of aggravated child

molestation. The trial court denied his motion, concluding that the final disposition

sheet was correct and submitted to the Department of Corrections. Golden filed the

instant appeal, but we lack jurisdiction.

In order to challenge the sentence computation sheet, Golden must seek relief

from the Department of Corrections, not from the trial court. “Inmate grievances

must be first heard and determined within the Department of Corrections, and from

an adverse Department determination an action can be brought in the courts, in the

nature of mandamus or injunction, against the director of the department.” Heard v.

Hopper, 233 Ga. 617, 617 (1) (212 SE2d 797) (1975), citing Brown v. Caldwell, 231

Ga. 795, 796 (204 SE2d 137) (1974). Accordingly, this appeal is hereby

DISMISSED.

August 27, 2019
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.

08/27/2019
EXHIBIT 14
----------


             CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
             ------------------------------------------------------
        SENIOR FINANCIAL OFFICERS OF PEOPLES-SIDNEY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction
------------

This Code of Ethics for the  Principal  Executive  Officer and Senior  Financial
Officers (the "Code of Ethics") has been adopted by the Board of Directors  (the
"Board") of  Peoples-Sidney  Financial  Corporation  (the  "Company") to promote
honest and ethical conduct,  full,  fair,  accurate,  timely and  understandable
disclosure of  information in the Company's  periodic and other public  reports,
and compliance with  applicable  laws,  rules,  and regulations by the Company's
Senior Financial Officers.

Senior Financial Officers
-------------------------

As used in this Code of Ethics,  the term  Senior  Financial  Officer  means the
Company's  Chief  Executive  Officer,  Chief  Financial  Officer,  Controller or
Principal Accounting Officer, and any other persons performing similar functions
for the Company.

Code of Ethics
--------------

In performing his or her duties, each of the Senior Financial Officers must:

      1.    Maintain high standards of honest and ethical  conduct and avoid any
            actual or  apparent  conflicts  of  interest  between  personal  and
            professional relationships;

      2.    Report to the Audit  Committee of the Board any conflict of interest
            that may arise and any material  transaction  or  relationship  that
            reasonably could be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest;

      3.    Provide, or cause to be provided, full, fair, accurate,  timely, and
            understandable  disclosure in reports and documents that the Company
            files with or submits to the Securities and Exchange  Commission and
            in other public communications;

      4.    Comply and take all  reasonable  actions  to cause  others to comply
            with applicable laws, rules, and regulations; and

      5.    Promptly  report  violations  of this  Code of  Ethics  to the Audit
            Committee.

Waiver or Amendments
--------------------

Any request for waiver of any provision of this Code of Ethics must be submitted
in writing to the Company's Audit Committee.  Waivers may only be granted by the
Audit  Committee.  This Code of Ethics may only be  amended  by the  Board.  Any
waiver or  amendment  of this Code of Ethics will be promptly  disclosed  on the
Company's  Internet  website,  a Current  Report on Form 8-K or any other  means
approved by the Securities and Exchange  Commission,  for as long as the Company
remains subject to SEC rules.

Compliance and Accountability
-----------------------------

The Audit  Committee  will assess  compliance  with this Code of Ethics,  report
material violations to the Board, and recommend to the Board appropriate action,
which may include, but is not limited to, reprimand and/or dismissal.
Exhibit 10.5

Pinnacle Bankshares Corporation

Directors
Annual Compensation

As of December 31, 2009



|                                           |  |                 
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------
|Annual Retainer                            |  | Amount          
|                                           | 
|Service as Director for the Company        |  | $2,000          
|Service as Director for the Bank           |  | $4,000          
|                                           | 
|Additional Committee Chair Annual Retainer |  |                 
|                                           | 
|Service as Chair of Audit Committee        |  | $1,500          
|Service as Chair of Compensation Committee |  | $1,000          
|                                           | 
|Meeting Fees (Non-Employee Directors)      |  |                 
|                                           | 
|Committee Meetings for the Company         |  | $250 per meeting
|Committee Meetings for the Bank            |  | $250 per meeting
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Samuel Altman, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, New York County,

June 25, 1936.

*813
      *Charles Berlin,*for the petitioner.

*William Roth,*attorney and nominated executor.

*Leo B. Lebovitz,*for Irving and Benjamin Altman.

*Englander & Englander,*for the residuary legatee.

Delehanty, S.

The widow of deceased, now seventy-three years of age, seeks in this proceeding to have determined her right now to file an election to take against the will of deceased. The will is dated June 15, 1934. The codicil thereto is dated July 16, 1935. Objections to probate have been filed, a jury trial has been demanded, and in accordance with the usual practice of the court the probate cannot be completed for several months.

Petitioner in May, 1936, offered for filing a paper which is in form an election to take against the will. Its receipt was refused and the application here is for an order directing the filing of the tendered paper. The motion is granted.

The Commission to Investigate Defects in the Law of Estates made various reports to the Legislature recommending liberalization of the inheritance laws of this State so as to protect the .rights of surviving spouses. Chief among these provisions was the new section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law which was prepared by the Commission and which was passed by the Legislature substantially in the form suggested by the Commission. By subdivision 7 of section 18 of the Decedent Estate Law the limit upon the time to file an election was fixed as six months after the date of issuance of letters testamentary. Obviously no letters testamentary have been issued and the question is presented whether the right of election may be exercised prior to actual probate.

The court holds that such right may be exercised. The statute is remedial. It should have that interpretation which gives the broadest possible protection to the surviving spouse. The notice filed with the person named as executor and a like notice filed with the clerk of the court suffices, whenever filed, if not later than the date fixed in the statute, to give to all the interested parties notice of the claim of the surviving spouse. The spouse in this *814case is not interested at all in the contest. Her rights should not be dependent upon the course of the litigation. She is here seeking to exercise a personal right which the statute gives to her. The. spirit of the statute requires the holding that nothing in its letter forbids the filing by a surviving spouse of her notice of election antecedent actual probate.

The nominated executor asks instructions of the court as to what he should do with the paper served upon him. He is instructed to keep it among the papers of the estate. If the will is valid he is and from the instant of death was the executor. If the will is valid the service upon him is a service upon the executor. If the will is denied probate then the whole effort of the surviving spouse becomes a futility.

Submit, on notice, order granting this application.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                               2
<SECURITIES>                                    54,473
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,676
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,443
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,096
<BONDS>                                         54,149
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,637
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,066
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   157
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,878
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                       408
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                628
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (612)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        16
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3475-3476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1053]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; Pediatric Neurology Training 
Review.
    Date: February 8-9, 2010.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.

[[Page 3476]]

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, 1250 22nd Street, Washington, DC 
20037.
    Contact Person: Joann Mcconnell, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Scientific Review Branch, NIH/NINDS/Neuroscience 
Center, 6001 Executive Blvd., Suite 3208, Msc 9529, Bethesda, MD 
20892-9529, (301) 496-5324, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#177a7474787979727d57797e79736439797e7f39707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8de0eeeee2e3e3e8e7cde3e4e3e9fea3e3e4e5a3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 14, 2010.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-1053 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>