alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Floyd E. McDONALD, Appellant, v. Yvonne NEWMYER, Appellee.

No. 01-88-00188-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

April 6, 1989.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1989.

*653Preston C. Goodwin, Hagerman & Seu-reau, Spring, for appellant.

Joan E. Scroggins, Caldwell, for appellee.

Before WARREN, DUNN and HUGHES, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

This Court, on its own motion, dismisses this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

The appellate record must affirmatively reflect our jurisdiction. *University Interscholastic League v. Payne,*635 S.W.2d 754, 756 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1982, writ dism’d); *Stegall v. Cameron,*601 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1980, writ dism’d). We have no authority to entertain an appeal where the appellant does not timely perfect the appeal. *Wadkins v. Diversified Contractors,*714 S.W.2d 136, 137 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, no writ). An appellant perfects the appeal by filing a cost bond, deposit of cash, or affidavit of inability to pay within 90 days from the date of judgment when a motion for new trial is filed. Tex.R.App.P. 40(a), 41(a)(1). The filing of the cost bond is a necessary and jurisdictional step in perfecting an appeal. *Davies v. Massey,*561 S.W.2d 799, 801 (Tex.1978).

Here, the trial court signed its final judgment on February 10, 1987. Appellant filed his motion for new trial on February 26, 1987. Under ordinary circumstances, this motion would have been overruled by operation of law on April 26, 1987. Tex.R. Civ.P. 329b(c). Appellant would have had to perfect his appeal by May 11, 1987, 90 days after the trial judge signed the judgment. Tex.R.App.P. 41(a)(1). Appellant did not file his cost bond until January 22, 1988, 346 days after the trial judge signed the judgment.

The record before us does indicate that, while the motion for new trial was pending, appellee Yvonne Newmyer filed bankruptcy proceedings, which stayed the district court action. *See*11 U.S.C. § 362 (1982).

On September 30, 1987, the bankruptcy court granted relief from the stay. (Appellant filed a certified copy of this order with the trial court.) There is nothing in the record that indicates when appellee filed for bankruptcy protection or how long the stay tolled the appellate timetable. Even if we assume, however, that the stay was in effect from the date the judgment was signed until September 30, 1987, appellant did not timely perfect his appeal. Appellant filed his cost bond 114 days after the bankruptcy court lifted the stay. That filing was not timely.

The appellate record does not affirmatively reflect appellant’s timely perfection of his appeal.

We dismiss the appeal.
##### 



Exhibit 10.15
 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
FOR THE USE OF
PORTAL VISION FOR ACCOUNT WAGERING
   1. BINDING EFFECT
  2. OBJECTIVE




---



##### 



3. USERS TOIAL REQUIREMENTS
  4. CONSIDERATION
  5. USERS USE LIMITATION
  6. GOVERNING LAW
  USER:
    
    
    
    SUPPLIER:COMPUTERIZED BOOKMAKING
SYSTEMS, INC.
    
    
    
    LAS VEGAS GAMING, INC.By:
    
    /s/ Vic Salerno
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John EnglishName:
    
    Vic Salerno
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    John EnglishTitle:
    
    President
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Chief Development Officer
 - 2 -
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Moliere SINEUS, Appellant. Moliere SINEUS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. WD 46157, WD 48859.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 29, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 31, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied March 21, 1995.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., C. Gail Vasterling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Consolidated appeal from conviction of murder in the first degree, § 565.020.1 RSMo 1986, and armed criminal action, § 571.015 RSMo 1986, and from denial of a Rule 29.15 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
Order filed July 28 , 2016

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00492

- CV

____________ IN RE SANNAURU FAMIL Y LIMITED PARTNERSHI P , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 61st District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 11828

- I



### ABATEMENT ORDER
On June 21, 2016, relator Sannauru Family Limited Partnership filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). In the petition, relator requested that this court compel the Honorable Erin Lunceford, Judge of the 61 st District Court, Harris County, Texas, to set aside her May 18, 2016 order denying relator’s motion to dissolve writ of garnishment, and dissolve the writ of garnishment in trial court cause number 2016

- 11828

- I, styled Suncoast Post

- Tension, Ltd. v. Peter Scoppa, et al.
On July 21, 2016, relator and real party in interest Suncoast Post

- Tension, Ltd.filed a joint motion to abate this original proceeding for sixty days to allow the parties to complete settlement contingencies. The joint motion to abate is
GRANTED . Accordingly, we issue the following order:
The original proceeding is abated for a period of sixty days from the date of this order, at which time relator and real party in interest are directed to advise the court of the status of the case. The original proceeding is treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The original proce eding will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the parties file a motion to dismiss the original proceeding or other dispositive motion. This court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the original proceeding, or the court ma y reinstate the original proceeding on its own motion.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
H. Res. 479 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 15, 2009. 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro was born Jesse Kuhaulua in 

Maui, Hawaii, on June 16, 1944; 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro entered professional Sumo, an 

ancient Japanese sport with origins spanning over several 

centuries; 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro was the first United States 

born sumo wrestler and also became the first foreigner to 

win the top division championship of Sumo in 1972; 

Whereas upon his 1972 victory, United States Ambassador 

Robert Ingersoll read a congratulatory message from 

President Richard Nixon, marking the first time English 

words were spoken at a sumo tournament; 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro competed in over 1400 

matches, established numerous records, and earned many 

awards over his 20-year career; 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro became the first and only foreign born wrestler to become an oyakata, or training 

master, by establishing a training stable for sumo wrestlers; 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro paved the way for Polynesian 

and other foreign wrestlers to compete in this traditional 

ancient sport including Saleva’a Atisano’e, also known as 
2 

•HRES 479 EH 

Konishiki, who became the first foreigner to reach ozeki, 

the second highest sumo rank, Chad Rowan, also known 

as Akebono, who became the first foreigner to reach 

yokozuna, the highest sumo rank, and Fiamalu Penitani, 

also known as Musashimaru, who became the second foreigner to reach yokuzuna; and 

Whereas Takamiyama Daigoro is retiring on June 16, 2009, 

at the mandatory retirement age of 65: Now, therefore, 

be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

(1) honors Takamiyama Daigoro’s achievements to 

Sumo and his contributions to enhancing United StatesJapan relations; and 

(2) encourages the international community to recognize the successes of Takamiyama Daigoro in Sumo. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2022

No. 04-22-00035-CV

Donald William FLETCHER et al,

Appellant

v.

TOSCANO PROPERTIES,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV05146

Honorable John Longoria, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On January 14, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating his intent to appeal his 

eviction. The clerk’s record was filed on March 10, 2022. The clerk’s record did not contain a 

final order or judgment. In response to this court’s inquiry, the trial court clerk confirmed the 

trial court has not signed a final order or judgment. “[A]n appeal may be prosecuted only from a 

final judgment.” N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Because 

no final order or judgment has been entered in the underlying case, appellant is ORDERED to 

show cause in writing no later than March 25, 2022 why this appeal should not be dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Source Petroleum Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended
September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Hussein Charanek, the Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer, President, Treasurer and Secretary (Principal 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 to my
knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

Date: December 11, 2006

By: /s/ Hussein
CharanekHussein Charanek, Chief
Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, President, Treasurer and Secretary
(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer)

---
#### Ronald LAWRENCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49095.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 13, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 27, 1994.

Application for Transfer Sustained Feb. 21, 1995.

Case Retransferred May 30, 1995.

Court of Appeals Opinion Readopted June 2, 1995.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27387-27388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13602]



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


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans 
Affairs
ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and 
respondent burden, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) invites 
the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on this 
information collection. This request for comment is being made pursuant 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)). Comments should address the accuracy of the burden 
estimates and ways to minimize the burden including the use of 
automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of 
information technology, as well as other relevant aspects of the 
information collection.

DATES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposal for the 
collection of information should be received by no later than July 30, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans 
Benefits Administration (20M30), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. All comments will become a 
matter of public record and will be summarized in the VBA request for 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval. In this document the 
VBA is

[[Page 27388]]

soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:
    OMB Control Number: 2900-0139.
    Title and Form Number: Notice--Payment Not Applied, VA Form 29-
4499a.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Uses: The form is used by veterans to reinstate their 
Government Life Insurance. The information collected is used by the VBA 
personnel to determine eligibility of the applicant for reinstatement 
of his/her life insurance.
    Current Actions: The form is used by the policyholder to reinstate 
a Government Life Insurance policy.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 300 hours.
    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,200.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the form should be directed to Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Attn: Jacquie McCray, Information Management Service (045A4), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20420, telephone (202) 273-8032 or FAX (202) 273-5981.

    Dated: May 14, 1996.

    By direction of the Secretary.
Donald L. Neilson,
Director, Information Management Service.
[FR Doc. 96-13602 Filed 5-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, John A. Roberts, the Chief Financial Officer ofInfoLogix, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

·       the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form 10-Q”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

·       the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:  November 23, 2009

 

 
| /s/ John A. Roberts     |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| John A. Roberts         |
| Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of MAJOR CREATIONS INCORPORATED (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"), I, William Major Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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







/s/ William Major

Date: March  14 , 2006            William Major

Chief Financial Officer, principal financial officer and principal accounting officer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00132-CV

IN RE Thomas Lancaster PRIDGEN III

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 20, 2013

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED AS MOOT

On February 21, 2013, Relator Thomas Lancaster Pridgen III filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus, complaining of the trial court’s ruling allowing Real Party in Interest Susan Pridgen 

to appear telephonically at a hearing on temporary orders. On February 21, 2013, this court 

entered an order requesting a response from the Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe and the 

Real Party in Interest and entering a stay of the trial court proceedings. On March 5, 2013, Real 

Party in Interest filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus, contending the 

petition for writ of mandamus is moot because the Real Party in Interest has agreed to appear in 

person for the hearing on temporary orders instead of proceeding telephonically. On March 6, 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013-CI-00079, styled In the Matter of the Marriage of Susan Pridgen 

and Thomas Lancaster Pridgen III, pending in the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the 

Honorable Peter Sakai presiding. However, the ruling complained of was made by the Honorable Barbara Hanson 

Nellermoe, presiding judge of the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.
04-13-00132-CV

- 2 -

2013, Relator filed a response to the motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions, and on March 

11, 2013, Judge Nellermoe filed a response to the petition. 

The court has considered the petition, the responses, and the motions filed by the parties 

and has determined the ruling complained of is now moot. Therefore, the petition for writ of 

mandamus is DISMISSED AS MOOT. Furthermore, the motion for sanctions is DENIED and 

all other motions that have been filed in this proceeding are DENIED AS MOOT.

PER CURIAM
#### Glen S. STITT, Respondent, v. Richard C. STITT, et al., Appellants.

No. WD 49903.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 5, 1995.

Bob J. Hiler, Kansas City, for appellants.

Andrea P. Bolstad, Liberty, for respondent.

Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from judgment in action on promissory note.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
* 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. 96-11146 

Conference Calendar

 

MANUEL RIVAS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN J. CALLAHAN, 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:92-CV-152-C

- - - - - - - - - -

April 15, 1997

Before REAVLEY, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Manuel D. Rivas appeals the district court’s denial of his

application and affidavit for appellate attorney’s fees, which he

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412. This court has already

denied Rivas’ application for the same relief he now requests. 

Thus, there was nothing for the district court to consider, and

it so noted. This appeal is frivolous. 
No.

- 2 -

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-41362, 333-60162, 333-64974, 333-86958, and333-111651 of I-many, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement Nos. 333-68924, 333-76716, 333-85044, 333-88714, and 333-105088 of the Company on Form S-3 of our report dated March 15, 2004, relatingto the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Boston, Massachusetts 

March 16, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.4

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL 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 June 29, 2008 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tracey L.
Stockwell, 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: August 8, 2008



By:

/S/ TRACEY L. STOCKWELLTracey L. StockwellTreasurer (Principal Financial Officer)




35
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, CLE COMMISSION, Movant, v. William Donald BEYER, Respondent.

No. 92-SC-1042-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Feb. 18, 1993.

ORDER

Pursuant to SCR 3.669, this Court finds that William Donald Beyer, respondent, has not shown cause for his failure to comply with the minimum continuing legal education requirements of SCR 3.661.

Respondent is hereby notified of his suspension from the practice of law twenty (20) days from the date of this order, pursuant to SCR 3.668(2), unless before that date he complies with the requirements of SCR 3.667(2), including his application for extension of time and payment of the filing fee.

Upon failure to timely comply with the terms of this order, respondent, William Donald Beyer, is suspended from the practice of law pursuant to SCR 3.668(2).

Entered: February 18, 1993.

/s/ Robert F. Stephens Chief Justice