alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.6



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. II

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City
Florida Holding Co. II (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 3, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Short, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 16, 2005



By:

/s/ MICHAEL J. SHORTMichael J. ShortPrincipal Financial Officer




34
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Allen Sentinery,

Plaintiff,

v. 

United States Government,

Defendant.

No. CV-17-03952-PHX-BSB

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 10.) The matter 

was referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade for a Report and Recommendation. 

(Doc. 7.) On January 8, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation 

with this Court. (Doc. 11.) No objections have been filed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 

service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 

object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo

review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 

findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to 

object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 
- 2 - 

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

propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id.

DISCUSSION

 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 10) invokes federal question jurisdiction and 

alleges claims pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 402 U.S. 388 (1971). 

(Doc. 11 at 3-4.) The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings that the Amended 

Complaint fails to state a valid claim under Bivens and that no Bivens remedy is 

available against federal agencies. (Id. at 4-5.) Therefore, the Court will dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6). 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 11.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is 

DISMISSED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly.

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2018.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

CC: BSB
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4029

_____________________________
J OHN D. S MITH , Appellant,

v.

P AMELA J O B ONDI , i n h er o fficial capacity as Attorney General of the State of Florida
, Appellee.

__ ___________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Charles W. Dodson , Judge

. October 26, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

. R AY , K ELSEY , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of a ny timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Scott E. Siverson
, Orlando, for Appellant.

Russell S. Kent
, Special Counsel for Litigation , Office of the Attorney General , Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 405 

Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the floods in North 

Dakota. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2009 

Mr. POMEROY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

RESOLUTION 

Commending the heroic efforts of the people fighting the 

floods in North Dakota. 

Whereas 47 of the 53 counties in North Dakota have been 

declared Federal disaster areas; 

Whereas wide swaths of North Dakota have faced unprecedented flooding crises, including cities along the Des 

Lacs, Heart, James, Knife, Missouri, Little Missouri, 

Park, Pembina, Red, Sheyenne, Souris, and Wild Rice 

Rivers and Beaver Creek; 

Whereas the people of North Dakota have suffered tremendous damage to their homes, livelihoods, and communities; 

Whereas the ranchers of North Dakota are estimated to have 

lost nearly 100,000 head of livestock; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 405 IH 

Whereas many of the roads and bridges, and much of the 

other infrastructure, in North Dakota are in need of repair; 

Whereas, despite terrible conditions, the people of North Dakota have shown the strength of their shared bond, coming together in large numbers to save their cities, towns, 

businesses, farms, and ranches; 

Whereas stories of exceptional efforts abound, from people 

filling millions of sandbags on short notice, to people saving lives and effecting rapid emergency evacuations; 

Whereas Federal, State, and local officials have provided outstanding leadership and effective service throughout the 

crisis in North Dakota; and 

Whereas the response of the people of North Dakota to the 

disaster has shown the world how communities can unite, 

fight, and win in a crisis: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) commends the people of North Dakota for 

3 their heroic efforts in fighting the floods in North 

4 Dakota; 

5 (2) commends the many people from around the 

6 United States who assisted the people of North Da7 kota during this time of need; 

8 (3) expresses appreciation to the officials of the 

9 numerous Federal agencies, including the Federal 

10 Emergency Management Agency, working on the 

11 ground in North Dakota for their consistently rapid, 

12 efficient, and effective response to the disaster; and 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 405 IH 

1 (4) continues to stand with the communities of 

2 North Dakota in the efforts to recover from the 

3 flooding during 2009, and to improve protections 

4 against flooding in the future. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Rubicon Financial Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph Mangiapane, Jr., Chief Executive and Principal 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 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/ Joseph Mangiapane, Jr.


Joseph Mangiapane, Jr.


Chief Executive Officer and


Principal Financial Officer


March 6, 2012
Case 2:17-mj-00465-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00465-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00465-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00465-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00465-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12859]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[OJP No. 1083]
RIN 1121-ZA33


Notice of Program Plans for Fiscal Year 1996; Correction

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

AGENCY: Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the notice document 61 FR 21238 beginning on page 21238 in 
the issue of Thursday, May 9, 1996, make the following correction:
    On page 21288 in the second column, the address for receipt of a 
Program Announcement and Application Kit for the Office for Victims of 
Crime was listed as 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 200, NW, 
Washington, D.C. 20531. This should be changed to 633 Indiana Avenue, 
NW, Washington D.C. 20531.

    Dated: May 16, 1996.
Reginald L. Robinson,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-12859 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
Case 2:17-mj-00566-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:17-mj-00566-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/16/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:17-mj-00566-MHB Document 1 Filed 11/16/17 Page 3 of 3
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 27, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________ 

NO. 14-11-00802-CV

____________

MAURICE SCHRUBEN, Appellant

V.

MARY AGNES SCHRUBEN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court 

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-58104

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

This is an appeal from a final decree of divorce signed August 23, 2011. On

March 16, 2012, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

The motion is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12583]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Army Science Board; Notice of Closed Meeting

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (P.L. 92-463), announcement is made of the following 
Committee Meeting:

    Name of Committee: Army Science Board (ASB).
    Date of Meeting: 15 & 16 May 1996.
    Time of Meeting: 0900-1700 (on both days).
    Place: Pentagon-Washington, DC.
    Agenda: The Army Science Board (ASB) Ad Hoc Study on ``Army 
Digitization Information System Vulnerabilities and Security'' will 
meet for briefings and discussions on the study subject. This 
meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b(c) of title 5, U.S.C., specifically subparagraph (4) thereof, 
and Title 5, U.S.C., Appendix 2, subsection 10(d). The proprietary 
matters to be discussed are so inextricably intertwined so as to 
preclude opening any portion of this meeting. For further 
information, please contact Michelle Diaz at (703) 695-0781.
Michelle P. Diaz,
Acting Administrative Officer, Army Science Board.
[FR Doc. 96-12583 Filed 5-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 3, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00841-CV 

IN RE CHELSEA DAVIS, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 254th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-19281 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Fillmore 

Opinion by Justice Fillmore 

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus challenging numerous orders1 of the 

associate judge in this case. Relator prays that the Court “reverse all findings, rulings, 

recommendations and orders signed by the associate judge and direct the court clerk to close the 

case.” The facts and issues are well-known to the parties so we do not recount them here. 

The Court first considers its jurisdiction over this petition for writ of mandamus. 

“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Fin. Com'n of Texas v. 

Norwood, 418 S.W.3d 566, 578 (Tex. 2013) (quoting Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l 

Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The order of the 

 1

 Relator has not included in her filing the complained–of orders, any document showing the matter complained of, or any other document 

material to her claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k); 52.7. Relator also has not properly certified her petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). 

Thus, relator’s petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2008, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for writ of mandamus because petition and record not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure). 
 –2– 

associate judge is not an order of the trial court. Associate judges do not have the power to 

render final orders outside the context of certain limited exceptions listed in section 

201.007(a)(14) of the family code. Graham v. Graham, 414 S.W.3d 800, 801 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.). This Court does not have jurisdiction to grant a writ of 

mandamus compelling the associate judge to vacate his orders. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 

(West 2010); Graham, 414 S.W.3d at 802 (courts of appeals do not have mandamus jurisdiction 

over the actions of an associate judge); see also Welder v. Fritz, 750 S.W.2d 930, 932 (Tex. 

App.—Corpus Christi 1988, no writ) (jurisdiction of courts of appeals to issue writs of 

mandamus is limited to writs against judges of district and county courts within district and a 

family law master is neither of these). This Court also does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ 

of mandamus against the district clerk. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2010); In re 

Phillips, No. 05-14-00683-CV, 2014 WL 2609217, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 10, 2014, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Chumbley, No. 05–13–00881–CV, 2013 WL 3718070, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas July 12, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op). Accordingly, we DISMISS the 

petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. 

140841F.P05 

/Robert M. Fillmore/ 

ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

JUSTICE
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George SAUNDERS, Appellant. George SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 48103, WD 50591.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 26, 1996.

James C. Cox, Assistant Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Deborah Neff, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Consolidated appeal from convictions of two counts of selling a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMO 1994, and from the denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Rodney L. GRIFFIN, Appellant.

No. WD 51297.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 26, 1996.

Richard A. Euler, District Public Defender, Maryville, for appellant.

Dwight K. Scroggins, Jr., Pros. Atty., J. Morton Nelson, Asst. Pros. Atty., Buchanan County, St. Joseph, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BERREY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Rodney L. Griffin appeals his conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of Section 577.010, RSMo 1994. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. Because a published opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the applicable principles of law would have no precedential value, we affirm by this summary order under Rule 30.25(b). In addition, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Case 2:17-mj-07537-BSB Document 2 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07537-BSB Document 2 Filed 11/03/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07537-BSB Document 2 Filed 11/03/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-07537-BSB Document 2 Filed 11/03/17 Page 4 of 4
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Mark
Gatto, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Co-President of ICON Capital Corp., the
Manager of the Registrant, in connection with the Quarterly Report of
ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC (the “LLC”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Quarterly Report”) certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
            The
      Quarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and





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








Date:
June 6, 2008





/s/Mark
Gatto


Mark
Gatto


Co-Chief
Executive Officer and Co-President


ICON
Capital Corp


Manager
of ICON Leasing Fund Eleven, LLC
Sanguine Corporation
                   101 East Green Street, #101
                    Pasadena, California 91105

November 10, 2000


Westbury Consultancy Services Ltd.
8, Rue des Morillons
75014 Paris, France

Attention:     Dr. Louis Leclerc

Re:       Letter of Westbury Consultancy Services, Ltd.
          ("Westbury") dated November 7, 2000, respecting its
          agreement to reduce the term of the warrants outlined
          in that certain Warrant Agreement between Sanguine
          Corporation, a Nevada corporation ("Sanguine"), and
          Westbury

Dear Mr. Leclerc:

          Today, in reliance on your letter dated November 7, 2000, the
Board of Directors unanimously resolved that in consideration of your
reduction of the warrant term in the Warrant Agreement from its present five
year period to one year from the effective date of Sanguine's Registration
Statement registering the shares underlying the warrants granted pursuant to
the Warrant Agreement, that the exercise price will be reduced from $0.30 to
$0.25 per share.

          Please acknowledge your acceptance of this proposal, as an
amendment to the Warrant Agreement.

          Thank you very much.

                              Yours very sincerely,

                              /s/Anthony G. Hargreaves
                              Vice President and Secretary

cc.       Roger Bendelac
                 Laidlaw Global Securities, Inc.
          Leonard W. Burningham, Esq.

ACCEPTED:

WESTBURY CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD.

By/s/Dr. Louis Leclerc
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

491 

KA 16-00069 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PHILIP B. MCARTHUR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

DAVISON LAW OFFICE PLLC, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF COUNSEL), FOR

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

BROOKS T. BAKER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATH (JOHN C. TUNNEY OF COUNSEL),

FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W.

Latham, J.), rendered March 18, 2015. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third

degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him,

upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the third degree

(Penal Law § 145.05 [2]). Defendant’s challenge to the severity of

his sentence is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to

appeal. Although no mention was made on the record during the plea

colloquy that defendant was waiving his right to appeal any issue

concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Peterson, 111

AD3d 1412, 1412), here the oral waiver was accompanied by a written

plea agreement that provided that defendant was waiving his right to

appeal his “conviction, sentence, and any proceedings that may result

from this prosecution.” Moreover, County Court conducted an extensive

inquiry that established that defendant had reviewed and understood

the written plea agreement, including its waiver-of-appeal provision,

had discussed it with his lawyer, and had agreed to its terms, and

defendant signed the document in open court during the course of the

plea colloquy (see People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094, 1096; People v

Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267). 

Therefore, defendant may not challenge the severity of the sentence.

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Order entered December 17, 2012



### In The 

# : iitb gtxa at

No. 05-12-00964-CR CHARLES RAY BACON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11-31310-S



### ORDER This appeal is REINSTATED. The trial court has filed findings of fact in accordance with our order entered on November 20, 2012. Appellant’s brief shall be due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.
Case 2:17-mj-00449-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00449-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00449-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00449-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:17-mj-00449-MHB Document 1 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 5
Order filed, June 17, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00493-CV

____________

MARLENE OCTAVIA KNIGHT, Appellant

V.

WE CARE KIDS CARE, PLLC AND LISA H. CATNEY, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS OWNER OF WE CARE KIDS CARE, PLLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 281st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-39498

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due June 03, 2013. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.
We order Rhonda Armbruster, the official court reporter, to file the record 

in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM