alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 10

- 00164

- CV

BRETT ARNOLD AND PAT RICIA A.

RUDDER APPELLANTS

V.

B.R. ISRAEL APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 141ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On December 1, 2010 , we notified appellant s that their brief had not been

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R.

App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecuti on

unless appellant s or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

within ten days a response reasonably explaining the failure to timely file a brief

.

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) . We have not received any response.

Because appell ant s' brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a) (1) , 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant s shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: December 30 , 2010
#### Barbara SUNDERLAND, Appellant, v. ST. LUKE’S EPISCOPAL HOSPITAL, et al., Appellees.

No. 13-91-428-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Nov. 6, 1992.

Jeffrey R. Bale, Gerald M. Birnberg, Williams, Birnberg & Andersen, Henry L. Burkholder, III, Houston, Harry H. Walsh, III, Walsh & Green, Huntsville, for appellant.

A. Scot Chase, Mary P. Pasewark, Matth-iesen & Associates, Lance C. Winchester, Ryan & Winchester, Ellen Finlay, Mayor, Day & Caldwell, Solace Kirkland, Houston, for appellees.

Before DORSEY, GILBERTO HINOJOSA and FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA, JR., JJ.

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

DORSEY, Justice.

On rehearing, we more fully address the merits of the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on appellant’s DTPA claim. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Appellant contends that representations made by Klima and Oliveira with regard to particular tests performed on her baby caused her emotional distress. Sunderland maintains that because the doctors allegedly lied to her about the tests they actually performed, she will never know the cause of her baby’s death. Therefore, she argues, these misrepresentations violated the DTPA. We disagree.

Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50 (Vernon 1987) states that a consumer can maintain an action under the DTPA when a deceitful act constitutes the producing cause of actual damages. The deceitful act alleged was the representation to Sunder-land that viral and bacterial tests were performed on her stillborn child. Drs. Kli-ma and Oliveira agree that no such tests were performed. However, they state that such tests, if performed, would have been inconclusive, because of the deteriorated *924condition of the tissue specimens. The specimens were not susceptible to successful viral and bacterial analysis because the child died several days prior to its delivery. Appellant has no competent summary judgment evidence to controvert that such tests could have indeed been performed with resultant answers to her concerns.

Sunderland's alleged injury is the infliction of emotional distress from not knowing whether her child died from a viral or bacterial cause. Because the uncontrovert-ed evidence is that such testing, if done, would have been inconclusive, the misrepresentation itself was not a cause of Sun-derland’s distress. Rather, the absence of a successful analysis addressing her concerns caused her injury. There is no evidence of a causal link between the alleged misrepresentation and the alleged injury.

We have again reviewed appellant’s complaints about the competency of appellees’ summary judgment proof. Appellant’s concerns go to the credibility of the interested witnesses and whether their statements may be readily controverted. We hold that the affidavits meet the standards set out in Tex.R.Civ.P. 166a(c).

The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment. Appellant's motion for rehearing is overruled and the judgment is

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATIONS
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350)








In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Card Activation Technologies, 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"), I, William
P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





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







Date:
      August 14, 2008By:
      /s/ William P. WilliamsWilliam
      P. WilliamsChief
      Financial Officer






23
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 Amendment No.1 to
the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Lightlake Therapeutics Inc. (the “Company") for the period ended October 31,
2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dr. Roger Crystal, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, 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.



Date: January 22, 2016



| | By:                           | /s/ Dr. Roger Crystal | 
| | ----------------------------- | --------------------- | 
| | Dr. Roger Crystal             |                      
| | Chief Executive Officer       |                      
| | (Principal Executive Officer) |
Exhibit 15.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





The Board of Directors


RiT Technologies Ltd.


Tel-Aviv


Israel.




We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of RiT Technologies Ltd. on Form F-3 (File No. 333-118354) and in Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos, 333-90750 , 333-117646 and 333-141680) of our report dated June 29, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of RiT Technologies Ltd. as of December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity and comprehensive loss and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, which report appears in the December 31, 2009, annual report on Form 20-F of RiT Technologies Ltd.




/s/ Somekh Chaikin


Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)


A Member Firm of KPMG International




Tel Aviv, Israel




June 28, 2010
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

11/13/2015 COA No. 02-14-00113-CR

McDonald, Joe Don Tr. Ct. No. CR12488 PD-0385-15

Pursuant to Rule 69.4(a) T.R.A.P., the record is returned to the court of appeals.

Abel Acosta, Clerk

2ND COURT OF APPEALS CLERK

DEBRA SPISAK

401 W. BELKNAP, STE 9000

FORT WORTH, TX 76196

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

FILE COPY
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Agustin Calderon v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 422

- CR

Trial court case number: 1 5 CR3346

Trial court: 1 0th District Court of Galveston County

On August 16 , 201 8 , we abated th i s appeal, remanded the case to the trial court,

and directed the trial court to appoint counsel, at no expense to appellant, to represent

him on appeal. The trial court clerk has filed a supplemental clerk’s record that includes

the trial court’s August 20 , 201 8 “Notice of Appointment,” appointing Joel H. Bennett to

represent appellant on appeal. Accordingly, we REINSTATE the case on the Court’s

active docket.

Appellant’s brief is due to be filed in th is appeal no later than 30 days from the

date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a), (d).

Appellant’s pro se “Motion to Extend Time to File Appeals Brief” is dismissed as

moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 11 , 2018
```

                                              Annual Summary of Monthly Certificates
                                                   Year Ending December 31, 2002
                                                             Unaudited

                                                                                              Small
                                                                     Residential          Commercial
                                                                      Customers             Customers              Total
                                                                      ---------             ---------              -----

 Kilowatt hours of electricity billed                                24,379,011,901        4,441,623,192        28,820,635,093
 FTA Charged per kilowatt hour (Jan. - Dec. 2002)                            1.222(cent)          1.292(cent)              N/A
 Billed FTA Charges                                                    $297,911,525          $57,385,772          $355,297,297

 Estimated FTA Payments                                                $296,421,968          $57,156,229          $353,578,197

 Estimated Write-off                                                     $1,489,557             $229,543            $1,719,100
 Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                                  $561,110              $71,332              $632,442
     to the Collection Account
 Excess Remittance - reduced payment                                        $18,958               $5,071               $24,029
     to the Collection Account
 Net Write-off                                                           $2,031,709             $295,804            $2,327,513

 FTA Payments estimated to have been                                   $294,090,194          $56,637,466          $350,727,660
     received by the Servicer
 Remittance Shortfall - increased payment                                  $561,110              $71,332              $632,442
     to the Collection Account
 Excess Remittance - reduced payment                                        $18,958               $5,071               $24,029
     to the Collection Account
 Aggregate Remittance to Collection Account                            $294,632,346          $56,703,727          $351,336,073
```
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4096



# 
P ETERL LOYD C OLEY ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-13) Submitted: June 20, 2002 Decided: July 11, 2002 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Richard L. Derrico, COPENHAVER, ELLETT, CORNELISON & DERRICO, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John W. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Donald R. Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Peter Lloyd Coley appeals the district court’s order reducing his sentence to 240 months pursuant to the Government’s Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b) motion. Coley’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one sentencing issue on appeal but recognizing that Coley waived his appellate rightsin his agreement with the Government. Coley filed a pro se supplemental brief asserting the terms of his 1996 plea agreement with the Government were violated. Coley and the Government entered into an agreement prior to the filing of the Government’s "Conditional Motion Pursuant to Rule 35(b)." Specifically, the parties agreed that Coley’s sentence would be reduced to 240 months and he would not appeal his sentence. Coley contends that this agreement denies his Fifth Amendment right to due process. A sentence that does not violate the law or incorrectly apply the Sentencing Guidelines cannot be appealed. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1994). This court lacks jurisdiction to review a sentence properly reduced pursuant to a Rule 35 motion. See United States v. Hill , 70 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Pridgen , 64 F.3d 147, 150 (4th Cir. 1995). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record inthis case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state a copy thereof was served on the client. 2 U NITED S TATES v. C OLEYWe dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process. DISMISSED 3 U NITED S TATES v. C OLEY
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: August 20, 2021 

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris (telephonic), Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, Released – Present

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. (telephonic) and Whitney Bernstein, Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, Released-Present (telephonic)

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained (telephonic)

Defendant-4: John Brunst, Released-Present 

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg (telephonic) and Gopi Panchapakesan, Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, Released- Not Present (Presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, Released – Not Present (Presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment

STATUS HEARING: 

Discussion held regarding Statement of the case, Jenks Material, Preliminary Jury Instructions, and 

Exhibits. The Government’s request to read the statement of the case during voir dire or in opening 

instructions is denied. Arguments held regarding First Amendment Instructions. The matter is taken 

under advisement. The Court will seat 17 jurors, which will include five (5) alternates. Defendants 

request for additional pre-emptory strikes is taken under advisement. Defendant Vaught objects to 

simultaneous strikes and will file briefing to support her objection. Trial procedures are discussed.

IT IS ORDERED that impeachment materials be lodged with the Court on the morning they intend to 

use them. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all Counsel, paralegals, assistants and defendants take a Covid test 

on August 30, 2021 and provide proof to the court prior to the start of trial. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant Spear’s request for reconsideration of the Court’s 

order to begin trial on September 1, 2021.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties provide the Courtroom Clerk with an electronic copy of 

their exhibits no later than August 27, 2021.

Court Reporter Christine Coaly

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

Status Hrg 2 hrs 39 mins 

Start: 9:38 AM

Stop: 12:17 PM

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Margaret Perlmeter (telephonic), Kevin 

Rapp, Reginald Jones and Daniel Boyle

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1233 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 31.4



Certificate of Principal Financial
Officer pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



I, Michael Scarpa, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of The Children’s Place, Inc. for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2019,
as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto on Form 10-K/A dated as of the date hereof (as amended, this “report”);
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | [Intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------



| | 4. | [Intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------



| | 5. | [Intentionally omitted]
| | -- | -----------------------







| | Date: April 18, 2019 | By: | /S/ Michael Scarpa                                                                                              
| | -------------------- | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                      |     | MICHAEL SCARPA
        Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
        (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 107 (Monday, June 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27946-27947]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13747]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Agency Information Collection: Submission for OMB Review; Comment 
Request

AGENCY: National Cemetery System, Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Cemetery System (NCS), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the 
following proposals for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    OMB Control Number: 2900-0232.
    Title and Form Number: Verification of Eligibility for Burial in a 
National Cemetery, VA Form 40-4962.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Need and Uses: The information is used to verify and determine 
eligibility for burial in a national cemetery and to establish 
permanent records of interments.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 11,754 hours.

[[Page 27947]]

    Estimated Average Burden Per Respondent: 10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 70,522.

ADDRESSES: Copies of these submissions may be obtained from Ron Taylor, 
VA Clearance Officer (045A4), Department of Veterans Affairs, 8l0 
Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8015.
    Comments and recommendations concerning the submissions should be 
directed to VA's OMB Desk Officer, Allison Eydt, OMB Human Resources 
and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 
Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-4650. DO NOT send requests for benefits 
to this address.

DATES: Comments on the information collections should be directed to 
the OMB Desk Officer on or before July 3, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Taylor, VA Clearance Officer 
(045A4), (202) 273-8015.

    Dated: May 17, 1996.

    By direction of the Secretary.
William T. Morgan,
Management Analyst.
[FR Doc. 96-13747 Filed 5-31-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.0

                           CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN
             PURSUANT TO SEC.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, the Chairman of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a), as adopted
pursuant to sec.906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-K"), filed
concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                          By: /s/ VINCENT VIOLA
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name:    Vincent Viola
                                            Title:   Chairman

Date: March 4, 2004
<PAGE>

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             PURSUANT TO SEC.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of NYMEX Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(a),
as adopted pursuant to sec.906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the "Form
10-K"), filed concurrently herewith by the Company, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

                                          By:   /s/ LEWIS A. RAIBLEY, III
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Lewis A. Raibley, III
                                            Title:  Chief Financial Officer

     Date: March 4, 2004
#### Juanita Lou BARCHERS, Respondent, v. Edwin E. BARCHERS, Appellant.

No. WD 47480.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 17, 1993.

James M. Thompson, Kansas City, for appellant.

Stanley D. Rostov, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Edwin E. Barehers appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to set aside judgment under Rule 74.06(b)(2). We affirm the denial. Rule 84.16(b).