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

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Exhibit K

PROPOSED ORDER

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3465-11 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:10:33 Page 1

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Randall E. Mehrberg

353 N. Clark Street

Chicago, IL 60654

Tel: 312 840 7505

rmehrberg@jenner.com

Special Corporate Defense & Energy Counsel 

for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas & Electric Company

X Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

No. 19-30088 (DM).

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

ORDER ALLOWING THE FIRST 

INTERIM APPLICATION OF JENNER 

& BLOCK LLP, AS SPECIAL 

CORPORATE DEFENSE COUNSEL TO 

THE DEBTORS, FOR COMPENSATION 

FOR SERVICES RENDERED AND 

REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES 

INCURRED FOR THE PERIOD FROM 

JANUARY 29, 2019 THROUGH

MAY 31, 2019

Upon consideration of the First Interim application (the “Application”) of Jenner & Block 

LLP (“Applicant”), as special corporate defense and energy counsel for the above-captioned 

debtors (the “Debtors”), for compensation for legal services rendered in this case and for 

reimbursement for disbursements for the period from January 29, 2019 through May 31, 2019 (the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3465-11 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:10:33 Page 2

of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Application Period”) the certification of Applicant and the exhibits annexed to the Application; 

and it appearing that the compensation requested in the Application is reasonable; and the Court 

having jurisdiction to consider and determine the Application in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 

and 1334; and due notice of the Application having been provided pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Bankruptcy Procedure 2002(a)(6) and (c)(2), and it appearing that no further notice need be given; 

and a hearing having been held before this Court, and after due deliberation and sufficient cause 

appearing therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Application is approved on an interim basis as reflected herein. 

2. The Applicant is awarded interim allowance of compensation for professional 

services rendered during the Application Period in the amount of $3,484,976.50 in fees and 

$21,436.56 in actual and necessary expenses. 

3. The Debtors are authorized and directed to make prompt payment to the Applicant 

of all allowed fees and expenses to the extent not already paid by the Debtors. 

4. The Court retains jurisdiction over any issues or disputes arising out of or relating 

to this Order.

*** END OF ORDER***

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3465-11 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:10:33 Page 3

of 3
SCPW-15-0000952 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
PAUL KAUKA CULLEN, also known as PAUL KAUKA NAKI, Petitioner,

vs. THE HONORABLE ADRIANNE N. HEELY, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, MOLOKA # I DIVISION, STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent Judge,

and RICHARD P. PERREIRA and GWENDOLYN H. PERREIRA, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (DC CIVIL NO. 13-1-0122) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Paul Kauka Cullen’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on December 24, 2015, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief or a lack of alternative means to seek relief at this time. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai # i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000952 20-JAN-2016 01:09 PM(a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not

issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, January 20, 2016. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-82453 of Roberts Realty Investors, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated
February 28, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Roberts
Realty Investors, Inc. as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Roberts Realty Investors, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2002.



/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 25, 2003
#### County of Cook v. Thomas Sennott.

*Jurisdiction—Validity of Statute.*

This court has no jurisdiction of controversies involving the validity of a statute.

[Opinion filed October 23, 1890.]

In error to the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding.

Mr. Edgar Terhune, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. Sidney Smith and John M. Hamilton, for defendant in error.

*269Waterman, J.

Is the act of the General Assembly, approved June 16, 1887, increasing the salary of certain officials, so far as it is applicable to Thomas Sennott, then and now clerk of the Probate Court of Cook County, valid, or is it unconstitutional and void *%*

This is the only question presented by the record in this case, and, involving as it does the validity of the statute, is clearly one concerning which this court has no jurisdiction. Laws of 1887, page 156.

*Writ of error dismissed.*
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 China Multimedia, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal period ended September 30, 2010 (the "Report"), I, Wilson Cheung, Chief 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: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations. /s/Wilson CheungWilson Cheung, Chief Financial Officer December 28, 2010
*Exhibit 32(a)***Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**     I, Michael P. DiMino, President and Chief Executive Officer of LESCO, Inc. (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2005 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/ Michael P. DiMino Michael P. DiMinoPresident and Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 2, 2005
33
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-04-00530-CR

Mark Isaac, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 1011112, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Mark Isaac seeks to appeal from a judgment of conviction for aggravated robbery.

The trial court has certified that Isaac waived the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2);

Monreal v. State, 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003); see also Blanco v. State, 18 S.W.3d

218, 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). The appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

__________________________________________

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Pemberton

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: September 30, 2004

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT D

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 1

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 2

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 3

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 4

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 5

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 6

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 7

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 8

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 9

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 10

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 11

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 12

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 13

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 14

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 15

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 16

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 17

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 18

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 19

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 20

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 21

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 22

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 23

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 24

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 25

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 26

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 27

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 28

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 29

of 30
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3499-4 Filed: 08/11/19 Entered: 08/11/19 23:06:09 Page 30

of 30
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                      11,568,998
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,338
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 59,214,729
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      21,312,220
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        21,191,494
<LOANS>                                    170,133,663
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,947,385
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             275,777,727
<DEPOSITS>                                 240,213,936
<SHORT-TERM>                                14,302,514
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,066,589
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,355,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,176,488
<COMMON>                                       247,037
<OTHER-SE>                                  14,415,566
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             275,777,727
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             11,957,997
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,237,934
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               382,932
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            15,578,863
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           5,535,132
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,798,703
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        9,780,160
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  678,050
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              9,388,608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,650,295
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,977,683
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,977,683
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.20
<LOANS-NON>                                    247,777
<LOANS-PAST>                                   605,510
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,860,490
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  678,050
<RECOVERIES>                                   109,387
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,947,385
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            90,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      1,857,385


</TABLE>
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10434

Summary Calendar

____________________

ALLEN McDANIEL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary, United States

Department of the Interior,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-3423-G)

_________________________________________________________________

November 12, 1998

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Allen McDaniel appeals the summary judgment dismissing his

Title VII retaliation action contending that his non-selection for

a promotion was the result of his prior complaint of

discrimination. He asserts that he presented substantial evidence

to establish a material fact issue as to whether he was the most

qualified candidate for the promotion and, therefore, whether the

reason given for his non-selection was a pretext for unlawful

retaliation. Pursuant to our review of the record and the briefs,
- 2 -

we AFFIRM essentially for the reasons stated by the district court.

See McDaniel v. Babbitt, No. 3:96-CV-3423-G (N.D. Tex. Feb. 11,

1998) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
Exhibit
15





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
Cellcom Israel Ltd:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-141639, No. 333-184955 and 333-206338) on
Form S-8 of Cellcom Israel Ltd. (“the Company”) of our report dated March 14, 2016, with respect to the consolidated
statements of financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, changes in equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2015,
and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, which report appears in the December
31, 2015 annual report on Form 20-F of the Company.







/s/ Somekh Chaikin
Certified Public Accountants (Israel)
Member Firm of KPMG International
Tel Aviv, Israel
March 21, 2016
32(i)

            Section 1350 Certification of Principal Executive Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Monroe Bancorp (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark D. Bradford,
President and 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 operation of
          the Company.




/s/ Mark D. Bradford
-----------------------------------
Mark D. Bradford
President, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
November 8, 2005


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350 and is not being filed for any other purpose.
#### Joseph Newman v. Ephraim B. Levy and Others.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied, without costs.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATIONS OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Paul Intlekofer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nutrition 21, Inc.;

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 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 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: November 1, 2005
Paul Intlekofer
Chief Financial Officer


                                       17
#### Samuel Sheingold, Appellant, v. Alfred Baer, etc., Respondent.

Motion for reargument denied, without costs.

Present — Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Woodward and Rich, JJ.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed January 22, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00678-CV 

FRANCES DARTSON, Appellant 

V. 

O FORECLOSURE, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14230 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Moseley, Bridges, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated July 15, 2013, we informed 

appellant that the District Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We 

directed appellant to file written verification that she had paid for or made arrangements to pay 

for the clerk’s record or that she had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. 

We cautioned appellant that if she did not file the required documentation within ten days, we 

might dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not provided the 

required documentation or otherwise communicated with the Court regarding the status of the 

clerk’s record. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

130678F.P05 

 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

FRANCES DARTSON, Appellant 

No. 05-13-00678-CV V. 

O FORECLOSURE, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-12-14230. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Moseley and Evans participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellee O FORECLOSURE recover its costs of this appeal from 

appellant FRANCES DARTSON. 

Judgment entered January 22, 2014 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 14
- 00746
- CV

C. W., Appellant

v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 13
- 002393, HONORABLE SC OTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R
PER CURIAM

Appellant C.W. filed her notice of appeal on November 21, 2014 . The appellate record was complete December 15, 2014 , making appellant ’ s brief due January 5, 2015

. On January 5, 2015 , counsel for appellant filed a mo tion for extension of time to file appellant’s
brief. Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days fo r co urt’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellant ’ s brief no later than January 27, 2015 . If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court.It is ordered on January 7, 2015

.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field