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



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
FIRST FORTIS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
§ 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the annual report of First Fortis Life Insurance Company (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lance Wilson, President and Chief Executive
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, based on 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. Date: March 29, 2005 /s/ Lance WilsonLance WilsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DALE MORGAN,

Plaintiff, Case No. 09-12140

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

 /

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, REVERSING

COMMISSIONER’S FINAL DECISION AND REMANDING MATTER TO THE

COMMISSIONER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on September 7, 2010.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

On June 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit challenging a final decision of the

Commissioner denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability and Disability Insurance

Benefits. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on September 28, 2009. 

Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on October 26, 2009. This Court had

previously referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk for a report and

recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).

On August 13, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk filed his Report and
2

Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court grant in part and deny in part

Plaintiff’s motion and deny Defendant’s motion. Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk concludes

that the Administrative Law Judge who rendered the Commissioner’s final decision

committed several significant flaws when he weighed and evaluated the treating

physician evidence in Plaintiff’s case. (R&R at 19.) Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk

therefore recommends that this Court reverse the Commissioner’s decision and remand

the matter for further consideration. (R&R at 25.)

At the conclusion of the R&R, Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk advises the parties

that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within fourteen days of service upon

them. (R&R at 25-26.) He further specifically advises the parties that “[f]ailure to file

specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal.” (Id. (citing Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505

(6th Cir. 1991).) Neither party filed objections to the R&R.

The Court has carefully reviewed the R&R and concurs with the conclusions

reached by Magistrate Judge Hluchaniuk. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is

DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commissioner’s decision is REVERSED

and this matter is REMANDED to the Commissioner for further consideration consistent
3

with the R&R.

______________________________

PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Copies to:

Kenneth D. Clayton, Esq.

AUSA Vanessa M. Mays

Magistrate Judge Michael Hluchaniuk
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

DIA SHAMMAMI, 

 Case #2:90-cv-12952 

 Plaintiff, 

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN 

-vsINDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B., 

AND ONEWEST BANK GROUP, LLC, 

 Defendants. 

_______________________________________________________________________ 

STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL

 THIS MATTER having come before the Court on stipulation of the parties for 

dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice, and the Court being advised in the premises, 

 NOW THEREFORE, 

 IT IS ORDERED that this case is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. 

 s/Patrick J. Duggan

 Patrick J. Duggan 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: December 11, 2009 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on ,December 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Marilyn Orem

 Case Manager 

Approved as to form: 

/s/ Edward Ewald, Jr. /s/ Timothy B. Myers

Edward Ewald, Jr. (P43751) Timothy B. Myers (P48152) 

Attorney for Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant 

614 S. Main 1650 W. Big Beaver Road 

Plymouth, MI 48170 Troy, MI 48084 

734 667 5310 248 502 1350 

2:09-cv-12952-PJD-PJK Doc # 13 Filed 12/11/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 177
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

SULTANI ANWUAH BENYAMEN,

Plaintiff,

Civil No. 2:09cv11757

v.

HON PATRICK J. DUGGAN

MICK DEDVUKAJ, District Director, MAG. JUDGE VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

U.S. Department of Homeland Security,

Detroit, MI; ERIC HOLDER, JR., U.S. Attorney

General; ROBERT MUELLER, Director, U.S.

Bureau of Federal Investigation,

Defendants.

________________________________________/

STIPULATED ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

Plaintiff Sultani Anwuah Benyamen and defendants Mick Dedvukaj, et al., by and through

their undersigned attorneys, stipulate to the entry of an order dismissing the above-captioned case

with prejudice and with each party bearing his or her own costs and attorney fees.

DAVID K. WENGER and TERRENCE BERG

ASSOCIATES, P.C. United States Attorney

s/Melanie Goldberg (with consent) s/Derri T. Thomas 

MELANIE GOLDBERG (P56677) DERRI T. THOMAS (P53439)

Attorneys for Plaintiff Assistant U.S. Attorney

535 Griswold, Suite 1600 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, MI 48226 Detroit, MI 48226-3211

(313) 963-3135 (313) 226-9153

attorneymelanie@aol.com derri.thomas@usdoj.gov

Dated: December 30, 2009 Dated: December 30, 2009

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

Dated: December 30, 2009 United States District Judge

2:09-cv-11757-PJD-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 12/30/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 16
Case 2:09-cr-20326-NGE-VMM ECF No. 581-2, PageID.2370 Filed 12/10/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

JAMMIE SWEARENGIN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

J ALEXANDER’S CORPORATION,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-13175

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

“FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND”

On August 12, 2009, Plaintiff, represented by attorney Michael Pitt, initiated this

action by filing a complaint with the court. On October 19, 2009, Pitt filed a “First

Amended Complaint and Jury Demand,” that purported to have been presented “in pro

per” and purported to have been “signed” by Plaintiff in a form consistent with the

manner required of users of the court’s CM/ECF system, as though Plaintiff were

registered as an electronic filer. 

On November 9, 2009, Defendant filed its answer to the first amended complaint,

and on November 12, 2009, Pitt filed a “Motion to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s Counsel.” 

The manner in which the “First Amended Complaint” was filed violates the court’s

local rules in at least two ways, and will be stricken. First, pro se litigants are allowed to

electronically file papers only with the court’s permission. E.D. Mich. LR App’x ECF R3. 

Second, the supposed pro se complaint having been filed under Pitt’s electronic login

and password—which together “serve as the filing user’s signature on all papers filed

electronically” (E.D. Mich. LR App’x ECF R9)—has created an inconsistent entry on the

2:09-cv-13175-RHC-MAR Doc # 10 Filed 11/20/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 39
1

 In addition, a party currently represented by counsel is generally not permitted

to simultaneously appear pro se. There is no right to “hybrid” representation. See, e.g.,

United States v. Mosley, 810 F.2d 93, 97-98 (6th Cir. 1987). 

S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\09-13175.SWEARENGIN.StrikeAmendedCompl.bsc.2.wpd

2

court’s docket. Pitt in fact remains responsible under Rule 11 and the Local Rules for

the filed document, but the document itself bears no indication of Pitt’s involvement. 

Indeed, the filing as a whole gives the appearance of Plaintiff having been allowed to file

a self-signed paper that evades the strictures of the court’s electronic filing rules.1

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand”

[Dkt. # 3] is STRICKEN from the court’s docket.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 20, 2009

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

on this date, November 20, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522

2:09-cv-13175-RHC-MAR Doc # 10 Filed 11/20/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 40
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY AND

JUNE, 2011, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of May and June,

2011. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel

should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility

in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-

5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court

commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 10-10079 FIELDS V. RAINBOW REHABILITATION CENTERS, ET.AL

2. 09-12543 KEVELIGHAN, ET.AL V. TROTT & TROTT, ET.AL

3. 10-11037 DOWNING V. LIFE TIME FITNESS

4. 10-11776 TAMPONE, ET.AL V. RICHMOND, ET.AL

5. 09-14162 VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES V. ENJOI TRANSPORTATION

6. 10-13296 LORILLARD TOBACCO V. AMANO OIL

7. 10-12370 HAHN V. BEST RECOVERY SERVICES, ET.AL

8. 10-10322 NORDMAN V. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

9. 10-13095 DELUCA V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO.

10. 10-13707 KEELY V. FIRE INSURANCE EXCHANGE

11. 10-13470 SMITH V. CO/OP OPTICAL SERVICES

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: May 13, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on May 13, 2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 7 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:09-cv-12543-PJD-VMM Doc # 117 Filed 05/13/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 1921
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Beverly Bennett,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12882

City of Detroit, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANTS 

GORDON DAVIS AND SANDRA VERMILYA

Plaintiff Beverly Bennett (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants on July 22,

2009. As of December 15, 2009, however, Plaintiff had not served the complaint on Defendant

Gordon Davis (“Davis”) or Defendant Sandra Vermilya (“Vermilya”). On December 15, 2009,

this Court issued an Order to Show Cause (Docket Entry No. 7), directing Plaintiff to show cause

in writing, no later than December 28, 2009, why her claims against Davis and Vermilya should

not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff has filed no response to that Order and the

time for doing so has passed.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Davis and

Defendant Vermilya are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S/Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Judge

Dated: May 24, 2010
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Beverly Bennett,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-12882

City of Detroit, et al., Honorable Sean F. Cox

Defendants.

_________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

on May 24, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager
Case 2:09-cv-13493-GER-MKM ECF No. 84 filed 03/17/11 PageID.1064 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-13493-GER-MKM ECF No. 84 filed 03/17/11 PageID.1065 Page 2 of 2
KALU Exhibit 10.10 - 3.31.2014 - 10-Q






Exhibit 10.10


AMENDMENT TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS AMENDMENT is entered into as of March 31, 2014, by and between Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and Jack A. Hockema (the “Participant”).  Terms not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement (as defined below). 


WHEREAS, the Company and the Participant entered into an employment agreement dated effective March 5, 2014 (the “Agreement”) and wish to amend the provision therein relating to incentive compensation.


NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 


		
	1.
	Section 3.4 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 




3.4    Incentive Compensation.  Each fiscal year, the Executive will be eligible to receive grants of long-term incentive compensation, including, but not limited to equity awards (such as restricted stock, stock options and performance shares) having a target economic value of 227% of the Base Salary for the fiscal year, on similar terms as grants made to senior executives; provided, however, that (i) 36% of the target value of the long-term incentive grant shall be in the form of restricted stock and 64% of the target value of the long-term incentive grant shall be in the form of performance shares, and (ii) absent the Executive’s express approval, in the event of a termination of the Executive’s employment, other than pursuant to Section 4.4, the Executive’s vested interest in each outstanding grant shall be not less favorable than (a) with respect to shares of restricted stock and performance shares, the terms of grants made to other Tier I participants during the applicable fiscal year in connection with the Company’s long-term incentive compensation program, and (b) with respect to all other grants, had such grant provided for vesting in proportion to the actual number of days of the Executive’s employment during the applicable vesting period over the total number of days in such vesting period. 


		
	2.
	The provisions of this Amendment supersede and replace in their entirety any conflicting provision set forth in the Agreement. Except as specifically amended hereby, the Agreement will continue in full force and effect.






    


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.


KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION


	
			
	 
	By: /s/ John M. Donnan
	 

	 
	Name: John M. Donnan
	 

	 
	Title: Executive Vice President - Legal, Compliance and Human Resources
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	/s/ Jack A. Hockema
	 

	 
	Jack A. Hockema
	 

	 
	President and Chief Executive Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

KENT OVERTON,

Plaintiff, No. 09-cv-13283-MAG-MAR

-v- Hon. Mark A. Goldsmith

CITY OF YPSILANTI, 

a Michigan municipal corporation, 

Defendant.

______________________________________/

JAMES K. FETT (P39461)

JOSHUA R. FIELDS (P68559)

FETT & FIELDS, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

805 E. Main Street

Pinckney, MI 48169

734.954.0100

fax: 734.954.0762

attys@fettlaw.com

ROGER A. SMITH (P27722)

GARAN LUCOW MILLER, P.C.

Attorney for Defendant City of Ypsilanti

1111 W. Long Lake Road, Suite 300

Troy, MI 48098

248.641.7600

fax: 248.641.0222

rsmith@garanlucow.com

______________________________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter having been raised by the stipulation of the parties and the Court being 

otherwise fully informed in the premises;

WHEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above matter be and the same is hereby 

dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees.

THIS IS A FINAL ORDER AND CLOSES THE CASE.

Dated: June 27, 2011 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

Flint, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-13283-MAG-MAR ECF No. 75, PageID.1330 Filed 06/27/11 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First Class

U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on June 27, 2011.

s/Deborah J. Goltz

DEBORAH J. GOLTZ

Case Manager

No. 09-cv-13283-MAG-MAR

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

I stipulate to the entry of the above Order:

 /s/ James K. Fett

James K. Fett (P39461)

Fett & Fields, P.C.

(Signed with permission given to Roger A. Smith on 6/23/11)

Attorney for Plaintiff

 /s/ Roger A. Smith

Roger A. Smith (P27722)

Garan Lucow Miller, P.C.

Attorney for Defendant

Dated: June 24, 2011

Case 4:09-cv-13283-MAG-MAR ECF No. 75, PageID.1331 Filed 06/27/11 Page 2 of 2
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael MAXWELL, Appellant. Michael MAXWELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66814.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 7, 1997.

Judith C. LaRose, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Michael Maxwell, appeals the judgment of conviction for delivery of a con-troEed substance, RSMo § 195.211 (Cum. Supp.1990), entered by the Circuit Court of Ralls County after a jury trial.1 We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of conviction is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 30.25(b).

1

. As appellant’s brief raises no issues pertaining to the judgment denying his Rule 29.15 motion, his appeal from that judgment is deemed abandoned. *State v. Gaines,*807 S.W.2d 678 n. 1 (Mo.App. E.D.1991).
- 1 - 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

FREDERICK O. OPIYO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 Case No. 09-13609 

vs. HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 

DEPUTY H. BOEHM, 

DEPUTY J. DARLING, and 

DEPUTY WEDGE, 

 

 Defendants. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT (DOC. 63) 

 Plaintiff moves the Court, “pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d),” to “set 

aside Summary Judgment obtained on fabricated evidence.” (Doc. 63 at 

PageID 603). It appears that plaintiff seeks relief from this Court’s 

September 16, 2010 “Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation.” (Doc. 26). The Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation was filed on July 7, 2010. (Doc. 25). 

 The Court may relieve a party from a final judgment for fraud, 

misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

60(b)(3). A motion invoking Rule 60(b)(3) “must be made within a 

reasonable time,” specifically, “no more than a year after the entry of the 
- 2 - 

judgment or order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). Plaintiff’s motion, however, 

was filed on June 7, 2017, nearly seven years after the summary judgment 

order was issued. Plaintiff attempts to avoid this time limit by moving for 

relief pursuant to Rule 60(d), which notes that Rule 60 “does not limit a 

court’s power to. . . set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” 

 Plaintiff claims that defendant Boehm submitted fabricated evidence 

in support of the motion for summary judgment. Boehm relied on an 

affidavit of Nicholas Romzek, Jail Lieutenant for Sanilac County, stating 

that Sanilac County payroll records indicate that Boehm was not working 

on September 5, 2008. Plaintiff appears to complain that the Court relied 

on this affidavit, as opposed to relying on some other form of payroll 

evidence. Plaintiff’s argument fails. Romzek’s affidavit is sufficient and has 

not been impeached by plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, therefore, is untimely and does 

not establish fraud on the Court. As such, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 21, 2017 

 s/George Caram Steeh 

 GEORGE CARAM STEEH 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
- 3 - 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on 

June 21, 2017, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also on 

Frederick Opiyo #39194039, FCI Bastrop, P. O. Box 1010 

Bastrop, TX 78602. 

s/Barbara Radke 

Deputy Clerk
#### Kimberly J. CARTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52213.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 9, 1996.

Ellen H. Flottman, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Respondent.

*880Before FENNER, C.J., P.J., and HANNA and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from the denial, without evidentia-ry hearing, of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief as untimely.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Motion Denied; Order filed July 16 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00991

- CR

____________ BRYAN O

. KOSSIE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1356861



### ORDER

Appellant is represented by appointed counsel, Joseph Salhab . Appellant ’ s brief was originally due March 23, 2015

. We have granted a total of more than 90 days to file appellant ’ s brief until July 1, 2015. When we granted the last extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional
circumstances. No brief was filed. On July 9, 2015 , counsel filed a further requestfor extension of time to file appellant ’ s brief. Counsel did not allege any

exceptional circumstances in the request.
We deny the request for extension and issue the following order.
Accordingly, we order Joseph Salhab to file a brief w ith the clerk of this

c ourt on or before August 19 , 2015 . If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the c ourt will issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the fail ure to file the brief and the consideration of sanctions, appointment of new counsel, or other appropriate relief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jamison and Busby

.
amzz_ex101.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 





 




  





1











  






 





 




  





2











  






 





 


 


 


 


3