alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 15 (Monday, January 25, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3901-3902]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1273]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Announcement of IS-GPS-200E Interface Control Working Group 
(ICWG) Teleconference Meeting

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, DoD.

ACTION: Teleconference meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public that the Global Positioning 
Systems Wing will be hosting an Interface Control Working Group (ICWG) 
teleconference meeting for the document IS-GPS-200E (NAVSTAR GPS Space 
Segment/Navigation User Interfaces). The meeting will address comments 
received on L2 Phase Relationships after the last Public ICWG on 29 
September 2009.
    The ICWG Teleconference is open to the general public. Dial-in 
information is provided below. More information,

[[Page 3902]]

including Comments Resolution Matrixes (CRMs) and track changed 
documents, will be posted at: http://www.losangeles.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9364.
    Please send all CRM comments to Vimal Gopal by 5 February 2010.

DATES: 12 February 2010: IS-GPS-200E. 8 a.m.-12 p.m. (Pacific Time).
    Dial-In Information: Phone: 1-800-FON-SAIC (1-800-366-7242).
    Code: 4511074.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vimal Gopal, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0d7b64606c61236a627d6c61236e797f4d61627e6c636a6861687e236c6b23606461"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d7a1bebab6bbf9b0b8a7b6bbf9b4a3a597bbb8a4b6b9b0b2bbb2a4f9b6b1f9babebb">[email protected]</span></a>, 1-310-909-7294 or Captain Neal 
Roach, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640a0105084a160b05070c24080b17050a03010801174a05024a090d08"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4dad1d5d89ac6dbd5d7dcf4d8dbc7d5dad3d1d8d1c79ad5d29ad9ddd8">[email protected]</span></a>, 1-310-653-3771.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-1273 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
ACCEPTED 011400968CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/2/2015 12:00:49 AM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00143-CR

No. 02-21-00144-CR

On Appeal from the 396th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1523899D, 1523904D

ORDER

We have considered appellant’s “Motion for Leave of Court to File a Motion 

for an Untimely Extension for Appellant’s Brief.”

Appellant’s brief was filed timely in cause number 02-21-00144-CR, but the 

appellant inadvertently omitted cause number 02-21-00143-CR from the style of that 

brief. Appellant’s motion for leave seeks to correct that omission, one day after the 

brief’s due date. The motion is GRANTED. This court will consider both briefs as 

RODRICK DESHION STEELE JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

FILE COPY
2

having been filed Tuesday, October 4, 2022. The State’s brief in response is due 

Thursday, November 3, 2022. 

We direct the clerk of this court to send a notice of this order to the attorneys 

of record.

Dated October 5, 2022.

Per Curiam

FILE COPY
**·**

THE STATE OF TEXAS • 

# vs ISIDRO ESPINOSA SOLIS No. 

### 2014-CR-2691 • § 

### § § 

### § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
. 

### .I 

### 75th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

. . 

# f)6X'ArL 

# Coun1Y, 

# rexAs

Defendant's Motion For An Extension of Time to File Appeal

COMES NOW, ISIDRO ESPINOSA SOLIS, Defendant herein, who, by and through the undersigned attorney ofrecord, respectfully moves that this Honorable CoUrt Grant an extension oftime to file Notice ofAppeal in this case. Defendant offers the following:

Counsel for Defendant accidentally m.issed two days 

### in his count for the date 

### 90 days from the date that the trial court imposed sentence on**Def~ndant.** As a result, Defendant respectfully requests that 

### this
. honorable Court grant Defendant a tWo day extension to file the Notice ofAppeal in this case. Respectfully submitted:-

·David Herrick The historic Milam building 

### 115 East Travis, Suite 

### 500 San Antonio, Texas 

### 78205 (21 0) 455-5225 (210) 455-9144- FAX john@jdherrick.com Attorney for Defendant Isidro Solis

3 

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of time to file Notice of Appeal has been sent to the Bexar County District Attorneys office at the following address: Bexar County District Attorney ACCEPTED 04-15-00596-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/20/2015 10:09:15 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK4 

### Paul Elizondo Tower 4th floor · · San Antonio, Texas 78205 On this the 3 

### Olh day of September; 20 15
. .**~** .

. ... .

### THE STATE OF TEXAS 

# vs. ISIDRO ESPINOSA SOLIS No. 2014-CR-2691 § IN 

### THE DISTRICT COURT § § !75TH 

### JUDICIAL DISTRICT § § 

### BEXARCOUNTY , TEXAS 

### NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE HONORABLE COURT: NOW COMES TRENT JACKSON, Defendant herein, who files this Notice of Appeal in the above styled and numbered cause.

Respectfully submitted:

ohn 

### D. Herrick 115 E. Travis, Suite 500 San Antonio , Texas 78205 (210) 455-5225 (210) 4559144- FAX SBN : 24000478 Attorney for Isidro Espinosa Solis (.H

- o ;::::**~: :** **:** : . :-..:.

: ·

....**.; ~~** **:~· .** **:** i.: 

### 04-15-00596-CR ACCEPTED 04-15-00596-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/20/2015 10:09:15 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELDO KLINGENBERG,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-72945

Tax Ct. No. 6950-08L

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Submitted October 25, 2011** 

Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. 

Eldo Klingenberg appeals pro se from the Tax Court’s order dismissing his

petition contesting a proposed levy to collect unpaid income tax liabilities for tax

years 1998 through 2003. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. § 7482(a)(1). We

review for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s decision to dismiss a case for

FILED

NOV 02 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72945

lack of prosecution. Edelson v. Comm’r, 829 F.2d 828, 831 (9th Cir. 1987). We

affirm.

The Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Klingenberg’s

petition for failure to prosecute because Klingenberg failed to appear at trial and

failed to engage in the mandatory stipulation process, despite warnings that failure

to comply could result in dismissal of the petition. See id. (court did not abuse its

discretion in dismissing the taxpayers’ petitions for failure to prosecute where the

taxpayers had, among other things, failed to appear for trial).

Klingenberg’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.
----

----

| (a)          | The      annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of the      Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(b) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b)          | Information      contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the      financial condition and results of operations of the    Company. |
|-----------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |   |   |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/      Richard N. Jeffs      |   |   |   |   |
| Richard      N. JeffsPresident |   |   |   |   |

| /s/      Richard N. Jeffs                         |   |   |   |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Richard      N. JeffsChief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Certified Technologies Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Chloe DiVita, Treasurer, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Chloe DiVita
(Name and Title)                      Chloe DiVita,
                                      Treasurer, Secretary and Chief
                                      Financial Officer
(Date)                                November 13, 2007









                                  End of Filing
EXHIBIT 23.1

           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTING FIRM


We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No.  333-18829),  Form S-8 (No.  333-20403) and Form S-8
(No.  333-61392) of Titanium  Metals  Corporation of our reports dated March 16,
2005,  relating  to the  financial  statements,  financial  statement  schedule,
management's  assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting and the  effectiveness of internal  control over financial  reporting,
which appear in this Form 10-K.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Denver, Colorado
March 16, 2005
___________ No. 95-4064

___________ Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Gary Grimes; Jodie Lemora, * * Defendants-Appellees, *

---------------- * * Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Arkansas. * Jim Rush, Jail Administrator; * Robert Hammond, Deputy Jail * [UNPUBLISHED] Administrator; Deputy Sampson, * * Defendants-Appellees, *

---------------- * * Pierre L. Weaver, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * v. * * Gary Grimes, Sheriff of * Sebastian County; Jim Rush, Jail * Administrator; Jodie Lemora, * Nurse; Robert Hammond, * * Defendants-Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: February 5, 1997 Filed: February 12, 1997

___________ Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

### The Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States Magistrate 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2- ___________ PER CURIAM.


### Pierre L. Weaver, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from an adverse judgment entered by the district court on a jury verdict in these 1 

### consolidated actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On appeal, Wea ver has nei ther identified any basis of alleged error by the distric t
cou rt, nor provided a trial transcript or requested one a t government expense. As we thus cannot review the jury's verdict,

we dismiss Weaver's appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(b)(2 ) (appellant urging finding or conclusion is unsupported by, o r contrary to, the evidence shall include in record transcript of all suchrelevant evidence); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a) (appellant mus t identify issues on appeal); Carter v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. , 87 F.3d 102 5, 1026 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam) (dismissing pro s e litigant's appeal because brief presented no question for appellate court to decide, because, inter alia, it did not identify any basis of alleged error by district court); cf. Branch v. Martin , 8 86 F.2d 10 43, 1046 n.2 (8th Cir. 1989) (failure of pro se appellant t o provide transcript precludes m eaningful review and ordinarily will result in appeal's dismissal).

A true copy.

### Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 12.01

                CRESCENT REAL ESTATE EQUITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                             (dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                               YEAR ENDED
                                                                            DECEMBER 31, 2004
                                                                            -----------------
<S>                                                                         <C>
Income from continuing operations before minority interests and income tax      $  189,278
Distributions received in excess of earnings from unconsolidated companies             191
Equity in losses from unconsolidated company with guaranteed debt                   (1,676)
Interest Expense                                                                   176,771
Portion of rent expense representative of interest                                   1,305
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                                            13,056
                                                                                ----------

Earnings                                                                        $  378,925
                                                                                ==========

Interest Expense                                                                $  177,006(1)
Capitalized Interest                                                                15,850
Amortization of Deferred Financing Costs                                            13,056
Portion of rent expense representative of interest                                   1,305
                                                                                ----------
Fixed Charges                                                                   $  207,217
                                                                                ==========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                                    1.83
                                                                                ==========
</TABLE>

(1) Includes interest expense on debt at an unconsolidated company that is
guaranteed by us.
Exhibit 31.1




I,
Attiazaz “Bob” Din, certify that:




1.
            
            I
      have reviewed this annual report for the fiscal year ended September 30,
      2008 on Form 10-K of En Pointe Technologies, Inc. (the
      “Registrant”);2.
            
            Based
      on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
      material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
      statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
      were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
      report;3.
            
            Based
      on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
      included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
      financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
      Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
      report;4.
            
            The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
      Registrant and have:





(a) Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and   (c) Disclosed
in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
Registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
            
            The
      Registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
      our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
      to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the Registrant’s
      board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
      functions):





(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




(b) Any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:
December 26, 2008





/s/ Attiazaz “Bob”
Din


Attiazaz
“Bob” Din


President
and


Chief
Executive Officer
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7944** 

ERIC VON POOLE , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. JOHN WOLFE, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents

– Appellees
.

App eal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. Andre M. Davis , District Judge. ( 1:08

- cv - 01918

- AMD )

Submitted : April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Eric Von Poole, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in t his circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Von Poole seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C
. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . 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) (2006) . A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McD aniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Von Poole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Von Poole’s motion for appointment of couns el, 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.

DISMISS E D
#### Albert T. Griffiths, Respondent, v. Cornelius P. Toomey, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant pay respondent ten dollars costs and perfect his appeal within ten days; otherwise, motion granted, with costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Hirsehberg, Burr, Thomas and Can*, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 Amendment No. 1 of TLC Vision Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
C. Wachtman, Chief Executive Officer, 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:

(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: August 22, 2006


                                        /s/ James C. Wachtman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        James C. Wachtman
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                       78