alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2351

In Re: TAMOJIRA, INCORPORATED, Debtor.

_________________________ B. VANDENBURG HALL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHERMAN B. LUBMAN, Trustee, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-98-124-3, BK-94-34438-T) Submitted: November 5, 1998 Decided: November 18, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. B. Vandenburg Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Allen Condyles, MALONEY, HUENNEKENS, PARKS, GECKER & PARSONS, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: B. Vandenburg Hall filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on August 10, 1998; Hall’s notice of appeal was filed on September 10, 1998. Hall’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hall’s appeal. Wetherefore 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 OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Juan Hernandez and Maria Hernandez v. MERS and Household Finance Corporation III, U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. as Trustee for LSF8 Master Participation Trust and Caliber
Home Loans, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 468

- C V

Trial court case number: 2015

- 32570

Trial court: 1 33rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant s filed a brief with redactions in the Statement of Fact s and Argument sections of the brief. Appellants provide no basis for these redactions and no reference to any sealing order

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 76a. Appellants filed a seemingly identical brief that

is not redacted.

Given that Appellants offer no basis f or the ir redactions and have otherwise

disclosed the redacted material s in a second filed brief, Appellants’ redacted brief will be

stricken and Appellants’ unredacted brief will be considered in its place

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.4 (setting forth acceptable form of brief), 9.9 (permitting redaction of sensitive data and setting forth manner of redaction and notice requirements).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Appellants’ redacted brief is stricken.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 4, 2018
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2467

To suspend for 3 years the duty on triazamate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 26, 2000

Mr. SPECTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To suspend for 3 years the duty on triazamate.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON

4 TRIAZAMATE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new heading:

‘‘ 9902.32.88 Acetic acid, [[1-

[(dimethylamino) carbonyl]-

3-(1,1-dimethyethyl)-1H1,2,4-triazol-5-yl]thio]-, ethyl

ester (CAS No. 112143–82–

5) (provided for in subheading 2933.90.97) ............ Free No change No change On or before

12/31/2002 ’’.
2

•S 2467 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

2 this section shall apply with respect to goods entered, or

3 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after

4 the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF ALGIERS BANCORP, INC.
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         STATE OF
SUBSIDIARY                       INCORPORATION/ORGANIZATION
<S>                                       <C>
Algiers Homestead Association             Louisiana
Jefferson Community Lending, LLC <F1>     Louisiana 
Algiers.COM, Inc.                         Louisiana
   Planet Mortgage, L.L.C.<F2>            Louisiana

<FN>
<F1>  The  Company  owns  70% of Jefferson Lending,  LLC.   A  Notice  of
      Dissolution was filed for Jefferson Lending, LLC on May 1, 1998.
<F2>  Algiers.Com, Inc., a  wholly-owned  subsidiary of the Company, owns
      51% of Planet Mortgage, L.L.C.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the FaxSav
Incorporated Financial Statements, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          7,923,105
<SECURITIES>                                    1,002,513
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,244,531
<ALLOWANCES>                                    229,376
<INVENTORY>                                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,192,190
<PP&E>                                          5,744,738
<DEPRECIATION>                                  2,248,918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,857,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           4,521,095
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                        97,706
<OTHER-SE>                                      (15)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,857,221
<SALES>                                         15,035,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,035,711
<CGS>                                           8,898,308
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,753,771
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (93,568)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (46,411)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (7,476,389)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             0
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (7,476,389)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.84)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.84)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

Description of the $550 million Third Amended and Restated
 Revolving Credit Agreement Extension

 

May 27, 2016

 

Pursuant to the terms of the $550 million Third Amended and Restated Revolving Credit Agreement, dated as of May 27, 2015, among CMS Energy Corporation, the financial institutions named therein and Barclays Bank PLC, as Agent, the parties have all agreed, effective May 27, 2016, to extend the Termination Date (as defined therein) for a period of one year to May 27, 2021.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fedders Corporation, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ending May 31, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael
Giordano, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), that to my
knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

/s/ Michael Giordano
----------------------------
Michael Giordano
Chief Financial Officer

Date: July 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Fedders Corporation and will be retained by Fedders Corporation and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       30
**Exhibit 32.1**

The undersigned officersof AVANT Immunotherapeutics, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certify to theirknowledge and in their respective capacities that the Company’s quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q to which this certification is attached (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ExchangeAct”), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date: November 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ UNA S. RYAN                       |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                        | Name:  | Una S. Ryan, Ph.D.                    |
|                        | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|                        |   |                                  |
| Date: November 9, 2006 | By:    | /s/ AVERY W. CATLIN                   |
|                        | Name:  | Avery W. Catlin                       |
|                        | Title: | Senior Vice President and             |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer               |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Mirant Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statement (No. 333-130935) on Form S-8 of Mirant Corporation of our report dated February 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Mirant Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31,2007 and 2006, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007, which report appears in the December 31, 2007, annual report on Form 10-K of Mirant Corporation. 

Our report refers to the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes*in 2007, Statement of FinancialAccounting Standards No. 158, *Employer’s Accounting for Defined Benefit and Other Post Retirement Plans*and Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123R, *Share-Based Payment*in 2006 and FASB InterpretationNo. 47, *Accounting for Conditional Asset Retirement Obligations*in 2005. 

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Atlanta, Georgia 

February 28, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology Corporation 

v. Charlotte Rutherford

Appellate case number: 01-14-00776-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-13621

Trial court: 127th District Court of Harris County

Appellants/cross-appellees Schlumberger Limited and Schlumberger Technology 

Corporation (“Schlumberger”) and appellee/cross-appellant Charlotte Rutherford have filed an 

“Amended Joint Agreed Motion for Second Extension of Time and to Modify the Briefing 

Schedule.” The joint motion is granted, and the briefing schedule in this case is amended as 

follows:

 Schlumberger’s response brief as cross-appellees and Rutherford’s response brief 

as appellee are due by January 20, 2015

 Schlumberger’s reply brief as appellants and Rutherford’s reply brief as crossappellant are due by March 13, 2015

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:/s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 8, 2015
#### GEORGE W. HARRIS, as Executor, etc., of WILLIAM D. HARRIS, Deceased, Appellant, *v.*CHARLES TODD, Jr., Respondent.

*Action*— when *upon contract, and not for tort.*

In an action by an executor tbe complaint set forth his official character, alleged that the defendant had obtained from the testator various sums of money, amounting to $8,305.67, that no part thereof had been paid, that they had been procured through false and fraudulent representations of the defendant, and demanded judgment for $8,305.67, with interest.

*Held,*that the allegation as to the fraudulent representations was improperly inserted in the complaint; that the action was one upon contract, and should be treated as such.

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered upon a verdict directed by the court, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

AT. *Dana Wells,*for the appellant.

*James W. Ridgway*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

This is an action for the recovery of money alleged to have been loaned to the defendant by the plaintiff’s testator. After *249alleging the official character of the plaintiff, the complaint states that the defendant obtained from the testator, in his life-time, various sums, amounting in the aggregate to $8,305.67; no part of which had been paid. It then contains statements of fraud, and false and fraudulent statements and representations of the defendant, made as inducements to the testator to advance the money to the defendant, and closes with a demand for judgment for the sum of $8,305.67, with interest. On the trial the plaintiff established an indebtedness from the defendant to the testator of $7,787.78, which was undisputed, and rested, and the court thereupon directed a verdict for the defendant, to which the plaintiff excepted. This direction was given on the ground that the action is for deceit. We think the trial court fell into an error. The action is for the recovery of money only. The complaint contains apt allegations to show a cause of action against the defendant, and closes with a demand for a money judgment only, and not for damages. The charges of fraud and misrepresentation, in contracting the debt and obtaining the money, are fit and proper in an affidavit to obtain an order of arrest against the defendant in the action, but were not proper to be inserted in the complaint. They were not issuable, and could not have been tried or determined on the trial. *(Graves*v. *Waite,*59 N. Y., 159; *Elwood*v. Gardner, 45 id., 352.)

A new trial must be granted, with costs to abide the event.

BARNARD, P. J., and Gilbert, J., concurred.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted; costs to abide event.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## Upcoming Webinar! National Discussion on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and its Impact

Upcoming **#Webinar**! Tomorrow: Friday, June 23rd, 2023, at 3:00PM EST.

National Discussion on the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and its Impact.

The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA) and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) will host a national discussion on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and its impact. This interactive discussion will bring together judicial thought leaders from across the country to discuss the challenges and successes of the decision and will provide an opportunity to share perspectives on ways to effectively support families and communities moving forward.

Register now: Webinar Registration – Zoom

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Trauma-Informed Practices for Criminal Courts: Implementation Opportunities  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Judicial College  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Second Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Visits The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
Order filed March 26, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00174-CV

____________

TAIMOOR GILANI, Appellant

V.

RIVER PARK CROSSING, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 434th Judicial District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-265038

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 28, 2020. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before April 10, 2020. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant

fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Poissant.
#### David H. Funderburk, administrator, plaintiff in error, *vs.*George C. Gorham *et al.,*defendants in error.

1. Where a note is given by a temporary administrator for property purchased at an administrator’s sale, it does not bind the estate which he represents. (R.)

2. If the property purchased is appropriated for the benefit of the estate represented by the temporary administrator, and he is insolvent, the creditor may proceed against said estate. (R.)

Temporary administrator. Demurrer to bill. Insolvency. Individual liability. Before Judge Johnson. Talbot Superior Court. March Term, 1872.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Marion Bethune, represented by *W.*A. Little for plaintiff in error.

E. H. Worrill for defendants.

*297Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a bill filed by the complainant against the defendants, to make the property of the estates of William B. Pope and Allen Pope, who died intestate, subject to the payment of the complainant’s debt. The defendants demurred to the complainant’s bill, which was sustained and the bill dismissed. Whereupon, the complainant excepted. The complainant alleges that at the sale of the property of his intestate, one George Gorham, as the temporary administrator on the estates of the two deceased Popes, and one Brown, purchased a certain amount of property for the benefit of the two latter estates, and gave his note therefor, which was signed by him as temporary administrator; that he obtained a judgment on said note against George Gorham for $¡146,60 principal, and $18,73 for interest. Subsequently Willis J. Gorham was appointed administrator on the estates of the two Popes, and moved to set aside the judgment obtained against George Gorham, so far as the same attempted to bind the property of the estates he represented, which motion prevailed. It is not alleged in the bill that George Gorham is *insolvent.*The complainant can obtain and enforce his judgment against the individual property of George Gorham, for the payment of his debt, for aught that appears on the face of the bill. The note given to the complainant by George Gorham as temporary administrator, bound him individually for the payment of it, but did not bind the property of the estates which he represented. If George Gorham is not insolvent, but able to pay the note, there is no good reason shown by the -bill why the complainant has not an ample and adequate remedy at law to compel him to do so. If George Gorham pays the note to the complainant, and it was given by him for property purchased for the benefit of the estates, and the same was appropriated and used for the benefit thereof, he may claim the right to be reimbursed out of the property of the estates, on a proper case made, but the com-cannot look to the estate for the of his *298note on George Gorham, unless he is insolvent, which is not alleged.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.