alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00535-CV

David Rebolloso, Appellant

v.

Terry Cortez-Vega, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-15-006206, HONORABLE TODD T. WONG, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

The appellate record must include the clerk’s record from the trial court. The clerk’s 1

record in this cause was due in this Court on October 16, 2015, but no record was filed. We received

notice from the Travis County clerk’s office on September 15, 2015, that appellant has neither

paid nor made arrangement for the payment of the record. Nor has appellant filed an affidavit

of indigence.

2

Under these circumstances, this Court may dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution. On October 19, 2015, we sent notice to appellant that the clerk’s record was overdue 3

and that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution if appellant did not make arrangements

 See Tex. R. App. P. 34.1, 34.5(a).

1

 See id. R. 20.1(2). 2

 See id. R. 37.3(b). 3
for the record and submit a status report to this Court on or before October 29, 2015. To date,

appellant has not responded in any way and the clerk’s record has not been filed. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.4

__________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Field

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: November 10, 2015

 See id. R. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), (c).

4

2
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MARCIA KUNTZWILER
, Appellant,

v.

ARROWHEAD CONDOMINIUMS, INC.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1142

[ August 12, 2021 ]

Appeal of non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Keathan B. Frink , Judge; L.T. Case No.

CACE20

- 004621

.

Philippe Symonovicz, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Scott R. Shapiro, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirm ed.

W ARNER
, M AY and C IKLIN
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
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

Jeremy Thacker,

Plaintiff,

v. 

GPS Insight LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00063-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

Before the Court is the parties’ Motion to Continue Stipulation Date. (Doc. 208.) 

On January 29, 2020, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Settlement, stating therein, “the 

parties are presently finalizing written terms and will file a stipulation of dismissal with 

prejudice as soon as possible.” (Doc. 205.) On January 30, 2020, the Court ordered the 

parties to file a stipulation to dismiss on or before February 28, 2020. (Doc. 206.) In the 

instant motion, the parties request to extend the deadline to file a stipulation to dismiss to 

March 30, 2020, due to “the number of individuals/entities whose final approval is 

required, and the complications of resolving two cases simultaneously.” 

After review and consideration, and good cause appearing, the Court will grant the 

parties’ motion. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties’ Motion to Continue Stipulation 

Date. (Doc. 208.) 

//

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 209 Filed 03/02/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation to dismiss on 

or before March 30, 2020. 

Dated this 2nd day of March, 2020.

Honorable Stephen M. McNamee

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cv-00063-SMM Document 209 Filed 03/02/20 Page 2 of 2
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 NEVTAH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
David Lazar, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.



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



|Date: April 17, 2020 | /s/
    David Lazar                                                                                                                 
|-------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                     | David Lazar                                                                                                                         
|                     | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
    Officer (principal executive officer and principal financial and accounting officer)



A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12100]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1995 Rev., Supp. No. 14]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Evergreen National 
Indemnity Company

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under Sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the United States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1995 Revision, on page 34440 to reflect this addition:
    Evergreen National Indemnity Company. BUSINESS ADDRESS: P.O. Box 
18295, Columbus, OH 43218. PHONE: (614) 893-1773. UNDERWRITING 
LIMITATION b/: $1,077,000. SURETY LICENSES c/: AL, AK, CO, DE, DC, GA, 
ID, IA, KY, MI, MN, MT, NJ, NM, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, WA, WI. 
INCORPORATED IN: Ohio.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, Part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/finman/c570.html) or through 
our computerized public bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at 
(202) 874-6817/6872/6953/7034/8608. A hard copy may be purchased from 
the Government Printing Office (GPO), Washington, DC, telephone (202) 
512-0132. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock 
number: 048-000-00489-0.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-6765.

    Dated: May 1, 1996.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 96-12100 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
EXHIBIT 32.1.

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

I, Ed Bailey, Chief Executive Officer, and Principal Accounting Officer, of Lighttouch Vein and Laser, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby 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 our knowledge, based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the period December 31, 2007 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):

 

 (1) The 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

 

| Dated:  April 28, 2008 | By:  /s/ Ed Bailey |
|------------------------|--------------------|

|   | Ed Bailey |
|--------|-----------|

|   | Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | Officer |
|--------|---------|

 

* A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to LightTouch Vein and Laser, Inc. and will be retained by LightTouch Vein and Laser, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
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 Quarterly Report  of  Brownsville
Company  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB  for  the  period  ended
December  31,  2006,  as filed with the Securities  and  Exchange
Commission (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of 2002, to the best  of  the  undersigned's
knowledge, 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.


Dated: February 13, 2007            By: /s/ Adam Cegielski
                                    Adam Cegielski,
                                    President  and Chief Executive
                                    Officer
                                    (Principal Executive Officer)

Dated: February 13, 2007            By: /s/ Adam Cegielski
                                    Adam Cegielski,
                                    Principal Accounting Officer
                                    (Principal Financial Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-40600

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff–Appellee,

versus

EDISON ADAN TAPIA-CHAVEZ,

Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:15-CR-1770-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Edison Tapia-

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 23, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-40600 Document: 00513811364 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/23/2016
No. 16-40600

2

Chavez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tapia-Chavez has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and relevant portions of the record. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-40600 Document: 00513811364 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/23/2016
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jhon Nigel Brisken,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Unknown Allen,

Defendant.

No. CV-18-00241-PHX-JJT (ESW)

ORDER 

On January 22, 2018, Plaintiff Jhon Nigel Brisken, who is confined in CoreCivic’s 

Saguaro Correctional Center in Eloy, Arizona, filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1), alleging a First Amendment retaliation claim. On April 16, 

2018, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and 

ordered Defendant Allen to answer (Doc. 8 at 12). The Court further ordered Plaintiff to 

obtain a waiver of service or effectuate service upon Defendant Allen “within 90 days of 

the filing of the Complaint or within 60 days of the filing of this Order, whichever is later,” 

or the action may be dismissed (Id.). On July 11, 2018, service was returned unexecuted 

for lack of sufficient information (Doc. 10). The Court provided Plaintiff with an 

additional service packet on December 21, 2018 and extended the time to effectuate service 

of process for an additional sixty days from the filing of the Order (Doc. 26 at 4). Though 

Plaintiff timely returned the service packet to the Clerk of Court, the United States Marshal 

Service (“USMS”) did not receive the forwarded packet. The Court sent Plaintiff a third 
- 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

service packet on June 14, 2019 (Doc. 30). Plaintiff returned the service packet to the Clerk 

of Court on August 26, 2019. Service was returned unexecuted on October 18, 2019 with 

the notation: “Per Warden Secretary, subject Allen no longer works for facility.” (Doc. 37 

at 1).

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), “[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the 

complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must 

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 

within a specified time.” Defendant Allen has not been served, and the time for doing so 

has passed. Where a prisoner fails to provide USMS with accurate and sufficient 

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, a court’s sua sponte dismissal 

of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 

1994) (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F. 2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on 

other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff either file an affidavit of service or show cause no 

later than December 13, 2019 why his Complaint (Doc. 1) should not be dismissed without 

prejudice for failure to timely serve Defendant Allen pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Dated this 12th day of November, 2019.

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Charles Bland, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Sirenza Microdevices, Inc.

Date: March 15, 2005



/s/ Charles BlandName: Charles Bland Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Arthur R. TOLER, Defendant/Appellant. Arthur R. TOLER, Defendant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

Nos. 59191, 61023.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Nov. 10, 1992.

Jeannie Arterburn, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

William R. Webster, Atty. Gen., Rudolph R. Rhodes, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff /respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this jury-tried case, defendant was convicted of felony stealing in violation of § 570.030, RSMo 1986.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 27099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13562]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Importation of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application

    Pursuant to Section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and 
Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to 
issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a 
controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a 
regulation under Section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a 
substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk 
manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
    Therefore, in accordance with Section 1311.42 of Title 21, Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on March 29, 
1996, Roche Diagnostic Systems, Inc., 1080 U.S. Highway 202, 
Somerville, New Jersey 08876, made application to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to be registered as an importer of tetrahydrocannabinols 
(7370) a basic class of controlled substance listed in Schedule I.
    The tetrahydrocannabinols will be utilized exclusively for non-
human consumption in drug of abuse detection kits.
    Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk 
manufacturer of this basic class of controlled substance may file 
written comments on or objections to the application described above 
and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such 
application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.54 in such form as 
prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
    Any such comments, objections, or requests for a hearing may be 
addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 
Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United 
States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20537, Attention: DEA 
Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than 
July 1, 1996.
    This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and 
independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1311.42 (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 
(September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import a basic 
class of any controlled substance in Schedule I or II are and will 
continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant 
Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 
Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 
21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1311.42 (a), (b), (c), 
(d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.

    Dated: May 22, 1996.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-13562 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Order filed, August 12, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00533-CR

____________

HOWARD HAMILTON DOTSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1568046

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due August 2, 2019. 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 Deanne Birdwell, the court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal within 15 days of the date of this order. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Christopher, Hassan and Poissant
#### STATE of Missouri ex rel. Kelly S. BULLOCK, Respondents. v. William E. BULLOCK, Appellant.

No. 18974.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

June 8, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied June 30, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

*709Bruce B. Brown, Brown & Brown, Kear-ney, for appellant.

Brian Keedy, Asst. Pros. Atty., Camden County, Camdenton, for respondents.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

William E. Bullock (Appellant) appeals from a judgment of contempt and the related warrant and order of commitment for failure to pay child support. Contemporaneous with the warrant and order, the trial court stayed execution to allow Appellant to appeal. The State of Missouri and Kelly S. Bullock (Respondents) filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the appeal is premature.

As this Court stated in *Win-Vent, Inc., v. Commerce Bank of Springfield,*856 S.W.2d 100 (Mo.App.1993): “An order of civil contempt is not final for purposes of appeal until enforcement of it has been sought. Where the record fails to show an attempt to enforce the order, an order holding a party in contempt is interlocutory and not appeal-able.” *Id.*at 101 (citations omitted).

As we later explained in *State ex rel. Watson v. Watson,*858 S.W.2d 841 (Mo.App.1993), a contemnor has two options in responding to a contempt order. First, he may purge himself by complying with the court’s order. If he chooses this option, the case becomes moot and unappealable. Second, he may choose to appeal. In that case, he must wait until the court’s order is enforced by actual incarceration pursuant to a warrant of commitment. If he chooses this second option, he is entitled to release on bail pending his appeal. *Id.*at 842.

The record in the instant case indicates that Appellant (contemnor) has failed to adequately pursue either of these options. On the one hand, he has not purged himself by complying with the court’s order. On the other hand, because the trial court stayed execution of its order, that order has never been enforced by incarceration. Therefore, Appellant’s appeal is premature.

The appeal is dismissed.

PARRISH, C.J., and SHRUM, J., concur.