alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH I FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH I Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 2, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls 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 11, 2006



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPresident (Principal Executive Officer)




33
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 report of Spark Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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/ Adam S. Berger     
|Adam S. Berger         
|Chief Executive Officer
|August 14, 2008        



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Brett A. Zane                      
|Brett A. Zane                          
|Chief Financial Officer August 14,
2008

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Spark Networks, Inc.
and will be retained by Spark Networks, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT
32.2
  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of BMX Development Corp. for
the three months ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dean A. Stewart, Chief
Financial Officer, of the Company, certify that:
 
 *   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  *   information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
  /s/ Dean A.
Stewart
 Dean A.
Stewart
 Chief
Financial Officer, Controller
 
 May 13,
2009
 
  This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Terrell PRATER, Respondent, v. EXECUTIVE INTERNATIONAL INN, Appellant.

No. 57391.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 12, 1990.

Ronald B. Wessel, Clayton, for appellant.

MacCarthur Moten, St. Louis, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

Workers' compensation case. Respondent (employee) was nineteen and one-half years of age when he received a back injury compensable under workers’ compensation. Commission found employee was entitled to the maximum compensation rate of $150.33 per week for thirty weeks. We reverse and remand for determination of the compensation rate.

Employee was born on November 13, 1966. He was injured on May 17, 1986. The hearing was on January 17, 1989. Commission stated in its findings of fact and rulings of law:

> It was the testimony of the claimant that on the day of the accident ... he was a minor. Pursuant to § 287.250(10) RSMo. 1986, in computing the compensation to be paid claimant, the increased earning power of this minor until he attains the age of twenty-one shall be taken into consideration.... Accordingly, I find the claimant to be entitled to the maximum compensation rate in effect at the time of the stipulated accidental injuries, i.e., $150.33 for permanent partial disability.

There was no evidence presented from which commission could have found employee was entitled to an increase in compensation due to increased earning power during minority. *Horrell v. Chase Hotel,*174 S.W.2d 881, 884[1] (Mo.App.1943). There must have been sufficient evidence to warrant a finding of probability of increased earning power and the probable amount thereof. Employee is not automatically entitled to increased benefits if found to be a minor. *See Nordhaus v. Lechtman*
      *651
      *Printing,*84 S.W.2d 422, 423[2] (Mo.App.1935); *Kraus v. Sefton Nat. Fibre Can Co.,*35 S.W.2d 920, 921[1, 2] (Mo.App.1931).

For the reason a factual determination as to the average weekly wage must be determined from the record, we reverse and remand for that purpose.

Judgment is reversed and remanded for determination of employee’s average weekly wage and his rate of compensation.

GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6819** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. WINSTON SYLVESTER OLIVER, II , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. James R. Spencer , Senior District Judge. ( 3:11

- cr - 00063

- JRS

- 2; 3:13

- cv - 00655

- JRS )

Submitted : October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Winston Sylvester Oliver, II, Appellant Pro Se. Erik Sean Siebert, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinio ns are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Winston Sylvester Oliver, II , seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (B) (20 12 ). 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) (20 12 ). When the district court denies relie f on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

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

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a con stitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently review ed the record and conclude that Oliver has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argu ment because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25507-25508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12699]



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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 96-051]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Solar System Exploration 
Subcommittee (SSES); Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting cancellation.

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

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 61FR20839, notice 
number 96-047, May 8, 1996.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATES OF MEETING: Thursday, June 6, 1996, 8:30

[[Page 25508]]

a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Friday, June 7, 1996, 8:30 to 1:00 p.m.
    Meeting has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Jurgen Rahe, Code SA, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202/358-2150).

    Dated: May 14, 1996.
Leslie M. Nolan,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-12699 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
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 EarthBlock Technologies, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      James E. Hines, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the
      Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, 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 result of operations of the Company.






**EarthBlock
                Technologies, Inc**Date: April
                12, 2007
            By:
            /s/ James
                E. HinesChief
                Financial Officer
Order entered August 10 , 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00728-CV

BRIAN E. VODICKA, Appellant

V.

A.H. BELO CORPORATION AND ERIC VAUGHN MOYE, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-12693

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 6, 2018 motion to amend his motion for en banc 

reconsideration. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED and appellant’s amended motion for en banc 

consideration received on August 6, 2018 is ORDERED filed as of August 6, 2018.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 15, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12208]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
[Docket No. 96-12]


Order of Succession

    By virtue of the authority contained in 12 U.S.C. 4, it is ordered 
as follows:
    During a vacancy in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 
or during any period in which the Comptroller of the Currency is unable 
to perform the duties of such office due to absence or disability, the 
following officials--each of whom has received appointment under 12 
U.S.C. 4 as a Deputy Comptroller of the Currency--shall possess the 
power and perform the duties attached by law to the Office of the 
Comptroller of the Currency in the order of succession enumerated:
    1. Konrad S. Alt, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Economic Analysis 
and Public Affairs;
    2. Julie L. Williams, Chief Counsel;
    3. Susan F. Krause, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Bank Supervision 
Policy;
    4. Leann G. Britton, Senior Deputy Comptroller for Bank Supervision 
Operations.

    Dated: May 7, 1996.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 96-12208 Filed 5-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
EXHIBIT 23.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8, SEC File No. 333-135197, of Spare Backup, Inc. and the related prospectuses of our audit report dated April 22, 2011 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2010 and 2009 and the consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' deficit and cash flows of Spare Backup, Inc. and its subsidiary for the year ended December 31, 2010 and 2009 appearing in the Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ Sherb & Co., LLP


Certified Public Accountants





New York, New York


April 22, 2011
Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30318 Summary Calendar

EDDIE LEE MARSHALL, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BRUCE N. LYNN; JOHN P. WHITLEY; RICHARD PEABODY, Colonel; DORA RABALAIS; DARREL VANNOY; (UNKNOWN) CALVERT, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 90-CV-500

- - - - - - - - - - July 18, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Eddie Lee Marshall, # 87459, appeals the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment grounds of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action. Section 1983 requires a violation of a constitutional or a statutory right. Green v. McKaskle , 788 F.2d 1116, 1123 (5th Cir. 1986). Marshall has not demonstrated a deprivation of a protectible liberty interest. Giovanni v. Lynn , 48 F.3d 908, 912 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 167(1995); Luken v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2295 (1995)), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1690 (1996). Marshall’s appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolous appeal is without arguable merit in law and fact). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We previously warned Marshall in Marshall v. Stalder , No. 93-3842 (5th Cir. May 17, 1994), that further frivolous appeals would invite the imposition of sanctions. Accordingly, Marshall is barred from filing any pro se , in forma pauperis , civil appeal in this court, or any pro se , in forma pauperis , initial civil pleading in any court which is subject to this court's jurisdiction, without the advance written permission of a judge of the forum court; the clerk of this court and the clerks of all federal district courts in this Circuit are directed to return to Marshall, unfiled, any attempted submission inconsistent with this bar.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION IMPOSED.
EXHIBIT 10.2

                             E-TRAVELSERVE.COM, INC.

                               AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO
                      YEAR 2000 STOCK AWARD AND OPTION PLAN

Article 3 of the Year 2000 Stock Award and Option Plan (the "Plan") is hereby
amended to read as follows:

3. Shares Available Under the Plan. The stock subject to Options and Stock
Awards shall be shares of the Company's Common Stock, .001 par value (the
"Common Stock"). The total number of shares of Common Stock available under the
Plan shall not exceed in the aggregate 40,000,000 shares, provided, that the
class and aggregate number of shares which may be subject to grant hereunder
shall be subject to adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 11
hereof. Such shares may be treasury shares or authorized but unissued shares. If
any outstanding Option or Stock Award expires or is terminated by reason of the
death or severance of employment of the optionee or grantee, the shares of
Common Stock allocable to the unexercised portion of that Option or the
forfeited Stock Award may again be available under the Plan.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o

. 0 9

- 3 0 2 1 5 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,
P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v

.
C R A I G J O N E S , a l s o k n o w n a s P a c o ,
D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f L o u i s i a n a U S D C N o

. 2 : 0 7

- C R

- 3 5 2

- 1 1

B e f o r e K I N G , B E N A V I D E S , a n d E L R O D , C i r c u i t J u d g e s

. P E R C U R I A M : *

T h e a t t o r n e y a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t C r a i g J o n e s h a s m o v e d f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f

i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v

. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. J o n e s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e

. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d ,

c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d J o n e s ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s

e x c u s e d f

r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. J o n e s ’ s m o t i o n f o r a p p o i n t m e n t o f n e w c o u n s e l i s D E N I E D

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 3 0, 2 010
Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-30215 Document: 00511336720 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

359 

CA 10-00205 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, SCONIERS, GORSKI, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES KALCHTHALER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

EMMETT J. CREAHAN, DIRECTOR, MENTAL HYGIENE LEGAL SERVICE, SYRACUSE

(MAUREEN T. KISSANE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (MICHAEL CONNOLLY OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County

(William D. Walsh, A.J.), entered November 17, 2009 in a proceeding

pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law article 10. The order, among other

things, committed respondent to a secure treatment facility. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs and a new trial is

granted. 

Memorandum: On appeal from an order determining that he is a

dangerous sex offender requiring confinement pursuant to Mental

Hygiene Law article 10 and committing him to a secure treatment

facility, respondent contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his

challenge for cause to a prospective juror. We agree. We note at the

outset that challenges to the jury impanelment procedures in Mental

Hygiene Law article 10 proceedings implicate a respondent’s

fundamental right to a jury trial (see Matter of State of New York v

Muench, 68 AD3d 1677; see generally § 10.07 [b]), and the procedure

set forth in CPL 270.20 governing challenges for cause in a criminal

trial applies here (see § 10.07 [b]). Pursuant to that procedure,

when a prospective juror makes statements that cast serious doubt on

his or her ability to render an impartial verdict, that juror must be

excused for cause unless the juror provides an “unequivocal assurance

that [he or she] can set aside any bias and render an impartial

verdict based on the evidence” (People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614). 

We agree with respondent that the prospective juror in question did

not provide such an unequivocal assurance and thus that respondent

should not have had to use a peremptory challenge with respect to that

prospective juror (see id. at 614-615). Inasmuch as respondent

exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the completion of

jury selection, reversal is required (see CPL 270.20 [2]; cf. People v
-2- 359 

CA 10-00205 

Lynch, 95 NY2d 243, 248). In light of our determination, we do not

address respondent’s remaining contentions. 

Entered: March 25, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS 

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS 

CEDRIC CARLDWELL '

Appellant 

V. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00035-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 42773-B 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee '

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT=S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

NOW COMES, CEDRIC CARLDWELL, the Appellant herein, and moves the Court for 

an extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief in this cause, pursuant to Rules 38.6 and 10.5 (b) of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: 

I.

The Appellant in this cause was convicted in the 124th District Court, Gregg County, 

Texas in cause number 42773-B for the offense of Murder. On November 20, 2014, punishment 

was assessed at Life in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division.

II. 

The Reporter=s record was filed on May 5, 2015. The Appellant=s Brief is due on or about 

June 4, 2015. 

III. 

The Appellant hereby requests an extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief. 

The undersigned counsel has been unable to devote sufficient time to the review of the 

record, research and preparation of Appellant=s Brief for the following good and sufficient 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00035-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

6/4/2015 4:16:46 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/4/2015 4:16:46 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
reasons:

1. Defense Counsel has been involved in a very busy trial and appellate schedule in both 

state and federal courts at various stages of litigation. 

2. Counsel underwent surgery at the Harvard Medical School in Boston 

Massachusetts and has been diagnosed with complications. Counsel is scheduled for a follow up 

doctor’s appointment on June 4, 2015. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of 

Appellant, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court extend the time for filing Appellant=s 

Brief for an additional thirty (30) days, to July 6, 2015. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant

140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240

Longview, TX 75601

(903) 753-7071 Fax (903) 753-8783

State Bar # 06249300
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As Attorney of Record for Defendant, I do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of 

the above and foregoing document was this date provided to the Attorney for the State.

Date: 06-04-15

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant
FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

CEDRIC CARLDWELL '

Appellant

VI. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00035-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 42773-B

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee '

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the _____ day of __________________, 2015, came

on to be considered the above and foregoing Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant=s 

Brief. After consideration of the same, it is the opinion of the Court that Appellant=s Motion be:

( ) GRANTED, and the present cause is hereby extended until _________________, 

2015.

( ) DENIED, to which ruling the Appellant excepts.

( ) SET FOR HEARING ON THE _____ day of __________________, 2015, at 

_____ o=clock_____.

SIGNED:

_____________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING