alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 16, 2016

No. 04-16-00170-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.B.R. AND P.Y.R., CHILDREN,

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-09297

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On June 20, 2016, the day Appellant’s brief was due, we suspended the appellate 

timetable to allow the parties to mediate. On July 22, 2016, after the parties could not agree on a 

date and time to mediate, we reinstated the appellate timetable and Appellant’s brief was due. 

Cf. CHCA Woman’s Hosp., L.P. v. Lidji, 403 S.W.3d 228, 234 (Tex. 2013) (tolling the expert 

report deadline during the period from a nonsuit to refiling the petition, but not restarting the 120 

day period to file). 

On August 4, 2016, after no brief or motion for extension of time to file the brief was 

filed, we ordered Appellant to show cause in writing by August 15, 2016, why this appeal should 

not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), (c); Elizondo v. 

City of San Antonio, 975 S.W.2d 61, 63 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). We ordered 

Appellant to include a reasonable explanation for Appellant’s failure to timely file the brief. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a). 

On August 12, 2016, Appellant filed her response that included a reasonable explanation 

and a request, in the alternative, to consider her response as a motion for extension of time to file 

the brief until August 21, 2016.

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due on 

August 21, 2016.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of August, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### Edverta COLEMAN, Appellant, v. BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

No. WD 50043.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 2, 1995.

Charles S. Scott, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.

Dennis E. Lee, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from Labor and Industrial Relations Commission’s award denying Edverta Coleman’s Workers’ Compensation Claim.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANCIS A. SHARRAK,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-20272

ORDER CONTINUING COMPETENCY HEARING AND DIRECTING ATTENDANCE

BY TELEPHONE OF RON NIEBERDING

On January 11, 2011, the court ordered a psychiatric or psychological

examination of Defendant Francis A. Sharrak’s competency to proceed pro se, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. On May 4, 2011, a hearing was held and continued to obtain the

opinion of the examining clinical psychologist, Ron Nieberding, Ph.D. Upon contact

from the court, Dr. Nieberding indicated he would be available via telephone on May 4,

2011, at 3:30 p.m. EDT. The Government and Defendant also being available at that

time, the court will continue the hearing at that time. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the competency hearing be continued on May 4, 2011, at

3:30 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Dr. Nieberding attend the competency hearing,

by telephone. 

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2:09-cr-20272-RHC-VMM Doc # 130 Filed 05/04/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 3757
2

Dated: May 4, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, May 4, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C1 ORDERS\09-20272.SHARRAK.Direct.Participation.nkt.wpd

2:09-cr-20272-RHC-VMM Doc # 130 Filed 05/04/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 3758
April 11, 2014


 


Richardson & Patel, LLP


The Chrysler Building


405 Lexington Avenue, 49th Floor


New York, NY 10174


Attn: David N. Feldman


 


		Re:	Issuance of Shares for Legal Services



 


Dear Mr. Feldman:


 


This letter confirms
our plan to issue to Richardson & Patel LLP (the “Firm”) and certain of its attorneys of, 87,348 shares of our
common stock (the “Shares”), to be registered on Form S-8 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in payment of
approximately $48,041 (the “Payment Amount”) due to the Firm by Protea Biosciences Group, Inc. (the “Company”)
for legal services. The legal services were not in connection with any capital raising transaction or with directly or indirectly
promoting or maintaining a market for the securities of the Company.


 


Your signature below
indicates the Firm’s acceptance of the Shares in full satisfaction of the Payment Amount.


 





	 	Regards,
	 	 
	 	Protea Biosciences Group, Inc.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Steve Turner
	 	Steve Turner
	 	President



 


 





	ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED:	 
	 	 	 
	RICHARDSON & PATEL, LLP	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	By:	/s/ David N. Feldman	 
	 	David N. Feldman	 
	 	Partner
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as principal executiveofficer and principal financial officer of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.(the “Company”), do hereby certify that to their knowledge:

 

1)                                     theCompany’s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2008 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)                                     theinformation contained in the Company’s Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended March 31, 2008 fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                      | /s/ Christoph Westphal                 |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                      | Christoph Westphal                     |
|                      | President and Chief  Executive Officer |
|                      | (principal executive  officer)         |
|                      |                                   |
|                      |                                   |
|                      | /s/ Garen Bohlin                       |
|                      | Garen Bohlin                           |
|                      | Chief Operating Officer                |
|                      | (principal financial  officer)         |
|                      |                                   |
|                      |                                   |
| Dated: May 14,  2008 |                                   |

 

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 20, 2022

No. 04-22-00077-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF V.M.M., a child,

Appellant

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021EM504017

Honorable Nick Catoe Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due on April 8, 2022. On February 15, 2022, the 

trial court judge filed a trial court recording. The record did not contain the logs as required by 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 13.2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 13.2(b) (requiring court recorder to 

“make a detailed, legible log of all proceedings being recorded”). We ORDER the court 

coordinator to file a response on the status of the logs within ten (10) days of the date of this 

order.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 20th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
#### NORTHLAND NATIONAL BANK, Appellant, v. Roland TULLBERG and Kathryn Miller, Respondents.

No. WD 51216.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Michael Svetlic, Kansas City, for appellant.

Robert Numrich, Kansas City, for respondents.

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

*591ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Northland National Bank, brought suit against defendants, Dr. Roland Tullberg and Kathryn Miller, for negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that defendants negligently misrepresented Dr. Tullberg’s power and authority to execute certain documents on behalf of the Maryville R-II School District. The jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants. The court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and denied plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALENTINE BALOGUN

Defendant.

 /

Criminal No. 09-20349

Civil No. 13-11094

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIEU OF JUDGMENT 

On August 31, 2014, the court entered an order denying Defendant Valentine

Balogun’s “Motion to Vacate Sentence.” Inasmuch as the issues in controversy have

been resolved, the instant matter is deemed closed. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court close the above-captioned case.

 s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: August 31, 2014

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record

on this date, August 31, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-20349.BALOGUN.OrderCloseCaseLieuJ.jac.wpd

2:09-cr-20349-RHC-RSW Doc # 72 Filed 08/31/14 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 976
BUTZEL LONG, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States Securities &

Exchange Commission,

Civil No. 2:09-CV-12950-DML-VMM

Plaintiff,

Honorable David M. Lawson

v. Magistrate Judge Virginia Morgan

D-4 BBC Equities, LLC, and

D-5 Bravata Financial Group, LLC

Defendants.

__________________________________/

Corporate Defendants’ Position on 

Docket Nos. 91, 123, 130, and 141

The Court has asked the Corporate Defendants for their positions on 

the motions filed under Docket Nos. 91, 123, 130, and 141, which will be 

heard this afternoon. The Corporate Defendants defer to the Receiver on 

each motion, given his role in this litigation under this Court’s 

Receivership Order (Docket No. 54, Sept. 2, 2009). The Receiver has 

indicated that he will be present at today’s hearing with his attorneys and 

can address the issues raised in each motion. 

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 178 Filed 12/10/2009 Page 1 of 2
1167781-1 2

BUTZEL LONG, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

Respectfully submitted,

BUTZEL LONG

Dated: November 23, 2009 By: /s/ Joseph E. Richotte

George B. Donnini (P66793)

Joseph E. Richotte (P70902)

150 W. Jefferson Ave., Ste. 100

Detroit, Michigan 48226

313.225.7000

313.225.7080 (fax)

donnini@butzel.com

richotte@butzel.com

Attorneys for the Corporate Defendants

Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 178 Filed 12/10/2009 Page 2 of 2
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 Dan River Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending January 3, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of 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: (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.



The foregoing
certification is to the best knowledge of the undersigned.



/s/ Barry F. SheaBarry F. Shea, Chief Financial OfficerApril 19, 2004
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4235 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4235

        To amend the Fair Housing Act to prevent certain abuses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 27, 1996

   Mr. Fox of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To amend the Fair Housing Act to prevent certain abuses.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fair Housing Amendments Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON LITIGATION.

    Section 813 of the Fair Housing Act is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(f) Limitation on litigation.--No person may commence a civil 
action under this section with respect to a discriminatory housing 
practice relating to a particular dwelling who cannot demonstrate, upon 
motion by the defendant, that such person has the ability and intent to 
inhabit the dwelling if the dwelling is offered to that person.''.

SEC. 3. REQUIRING INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION FOR DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING 
              PRACTICE.

    Section 802(f) of the Fair Housing Act is amended by inserting ``, 
committed with the intent to discriminate,'' after ``act''.

SEC. 4. EXEMPTION RELATING TO PUBLISHING OF INFORMATION.

    Section 807 of the Fair Housing Act is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit the 
imposition of any liability for a discriminatory housing practice on 
any publisher of information, such as a newspaper, that reasonably 
relies on the advertising copy presented for publication.''.

SEC. 5. LITIGATION COSTS.

    Section 812(c)(2) of the Fair Housing Act is amended by striking 
``the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party'' and 
inserting ``the court shall allow the prevailing party (whether 
plaintiff or defendant)''.
                                 <all>
```
#### James F. LUTES, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50410.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Sept. 26, 1995.

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

Larry C. Pace, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant James Lutes appeals the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion following his plea of guilty to two counts of forcible rape, § 566.030, RSMo Supp.1993, and two counts of forcible sodomy, § 566.060, RSMo Supp.1993. Mr. Lutes filed a Rule 24.035 motion alleging ten ways in which he believed his plea counsel was ineffective. Mr. Lutes also contended that there was an incomplete factual basis for his guilty pleas because he did not himself admit every incident or element of the crimes in sufficient detail in open court.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth our reasoning.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors

Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd.: 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements No. 33-90926 on Form S-8, No. 333-75706 on Form S-8, and No. 333-38338 on Form S-3 of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. of our report dated March 30, 2006,relating to the balance sheets of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. 

Our report datedMarch 30, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company has not been able to generate sufficient cash flows to service contractual obligations during the three years ended December 31, 2005 and had liabilities in excessof assets at December 31, 2005, that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty. 

/*s*/ **KPMG LLP**

Denver,Colorado 

March 30, 2006 

 

E-1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.12-40792

USDC No. 2:11-CV-330

ANTONIO M. LACY,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

RICKTHALER,DIRECTOR,TEXASDEPARTMENT OF CRIMINALJUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before JOLLY, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Antonio M. Lacy, Texas prisoner # 594575, seeks a certificate of

appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that

his liberty and property interests were implicated by the denial of procedural

due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing. His punishment

included a reprimand, 45 days of commissary and cell restriction, a reduction in

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 16, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 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.

 Case: 12-40792 Document: 00512056124 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/16/2012
No. 12-40792

time-earning status, and the subsequent forfeiture of $200 from his inmate trust

fund account.

With regard to his liberty interest claims, Lacy has not shown “that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). With regard to Lacy’s claim that the forfeiture of $200 

infringed his property interests, the district court should have entertained the

claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d 790, 793 (5th

Cir. 1986); see also Serio v. Members of La. St. Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112,

1119 (5th Cir.1987). The court’s determination that the proper defendant could

not be determined is incorrect as Lacy’s pleadings indicate Warden Jackson and

Sgt. D. Mayer were involved in the forfeiture. Additionally, the Parratt/Hudson

doctrine does not bar Lacy’s due process claim because the prison officials’

actions in this case were pursuant to routine disciplinary procedure. See

Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115 (1990). 

We therefore DENY the motion for a COA in part, GRANT the motion for

a COA in part, VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for the

district court to consider only Lacy’s claim regarding the infringement of his

property interest without procedural due process. See Whitehead v. Johnson,

157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998).

2

 Case: 12-40792 Document: 00512056124 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/16/2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-20238

D-1, TERRENCE PRITCHETT, HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE (Doc. No. 37)

AND

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CONSPIRACY CHARGE (Doc. No. 38)

This is a criminal case. Defendant is charged with conspiracy to possess with

intent to distribute controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant has

plead not guilty. Before the Court are the following motions:

• Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (at 452 Anderson) 

• Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Conspiracy Charge

• Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized at 390 Columbia

For the reasons stated on the record at the hearing on April 15, 2010, 

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (at 452 Anderson) (Doc. No. 37) and 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Conspiracy Charge (Doc. No. 38) are DENIED.

Case 2:09-cr-20238-AC-VMM ECF No. 56, PageID.216 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2
2

Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence Seized at 390 Columbia (Doc. No. 39)

will be the subject of a separate order.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: April 15, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the attorneys of

record on this date, April 15, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

Case 2:09-cr-20238-AC-VMM ECF No. 56, PageID.217 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:09-cr-20152-AJT-PJK ECF No. 4, PageID.6 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cr-20152-AJT-PJK ECF No. 4, PageID.7 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Petitioner,

MISC. NO. 09-mc-50529

-vsHON. ROBERT H. CLELAND

PATRICK H. COLEMAN,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION TO 

ENFORCE IRS SUMMONS

Petitioner having advised the Court that it wishes to dismiss without prejudice the

Petition to Enforce IRS Summons filed against Patrick H. Coleman;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition to Enforce IRS Summons brought

against respondent, Patrick H. Coleman, by the petitioner is hereby dismissed without

prejudice and without costs.

 S/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 29, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on
this date, October 29, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 S/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522