alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 22 - 00308 - CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

LIOVARDO AGUILERA , Appellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee.

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas. 

## O R D E R
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Order Per Curia m
Appellant, Liovardo Aguilera , has filed a notice of appeal with this Court from his conviction in trial court cause number LCR110052

. The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to appeal shows that the defendant doe s not have the right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be dismissed if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the record. Id. R. 25 .2(d); see id. R. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. The2

purpose of the certification requirement is to efficiently sort appealable cases from non

appealable cases so that appealable cases can “move through the system unhindered while eliminating, at an early stage, the t ime and expense associated with non

appealable cases.” Greenwell v. Ct. of Apps. for the Thirteenth Jud. Dist. , 159 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see Hargesheimer v. State , 182 S.W.3d 906, 912 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). Within thirty days of date o f this notice, appellant’s lead appellate counsel, Hon. Natalie Ganem , is hereby ORDERED to: 1) review the record; 2) determine whether appellant has a right to appeal; and 3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel’s findings as to whether appellant has a right to appeal and/or advise this Court as to the existence of any amended certification. If appellant’s counsel determines that appellant has a right to appeal, counsel is further ORDERED to file a motion with this Court within thirty days of this no tice, identifying and explaining substantive reasons why appellant has a right to appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 44.3, 44.4; Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610,
614

– 15 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); see also, e.g., Carroll v. State , 119 S.W.3d 838, 841 (Tex. App.

— San A ntonio 2003, no pet.) (certification form provided in appendix to appellate rules may be modified to reflect that defendant has right of appeal under circumstances not addressed by the form). The motion must include an analysis of the applicable case law, and any factual allegations therein must be true and supported by the record. See Dears , 154 S.W.3d at 614

– 15; c f. Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (construing former appellate rule 25.2(b)(3) and holding that recitations in the notice of appeal must be true and supported by the record). Copies of record documents necessary to evaluate the alleged error in the certification affecting3

appellant’s right to appeal shall be attached to the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1,
10.2.
PE R CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b). Delivered and filed on the 13th day of July 2022

.
#### Swan Monson *v.*Cass County Drain Com’rs *et al.*

Appeal from District Court, Cass County; *Charles A. Pollock,*J.

Action by Swan Monson against the Cass County Drain Commissioners and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Modified.

*M. A. Hildreth,*for appellant.

*522(92 N. W. Rep. 1133.)

*Ball, Watson & Maclay,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The questions involved in this case are the same as those presented and determined in the case of *Turnquist*v. *Commissioners*(in which an opinion has just been handed down) 11 N. D. 514, 92 N. W. Rep. 852. The decision in that case is in all respects controlling. It follows, therefore, that the judgment of the district court upon the merits must be affirmed. The allowance of an additional attorney’s fee against plaintiff in the taxation of costs, however, was error, and the same is ordered stricken from the judgment. As thus modified, the judgment of the district court will be in all things affirmed. Respondents will recover their costs and disbursebursements in this court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial  information extracted from the
consolidated  balance sheet and the consolidated  statement of income filed as
part  of the  report  on  Form  10KSB  and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by
reference to such report on Form 10-KSB.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                        0000915127
<NAME>                         PHC, Inc
<MULTIPLIER>                          1
<CURRENCY>                           US
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>               JUL-1-1996
<PERIOD-END>                JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                   1.000
<CASH>                          905,692
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                17,220,683
<ALLOWANCES>                  2,982,138
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>             12,786,954
<PP&E>                       10,353,569
<DEPRECIATION>                1,945,358
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               27,860,809
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         8,023,994
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           5
<COMMON>                         38,080
<OTHER-SE>                    5,686,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 27,860,809
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             27,234,372
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                28,500,890
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              2,097,982
<LOSS-PROVISION>              3,397,693
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            2,094,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>             (2,642,353)
<INCOME-TAX>                    197,311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>         (2,839,664)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                (2,839,664)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     (.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                     (.87)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF

UNION SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK

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 Union Security Life Insurance Company of New York (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Tamrha V. Mangelsen, Treasurer and 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, 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: February 29, 2008



/s/ Tamrha V. MangelsenTamrha V. MangelsenTreasurer and Chief Financial Officer
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-20-00276-CV

Ex parte H.E.A.

On Appeal from the

440th District Court of Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DEC-19-50433

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

appellant, and it is ordered to pay all costs of the appeal from which it is not exempt by 

statute.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 9, 2022
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 155 (Monday, August 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46612-46613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13154-000]


FFP Ohio River 8, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Applications 
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To Intervene, and 
Competing Applications

August 5, 2008.
    On March 25, 2008, FFP Ohio River 8, LLC each filed an application, 
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study 
the feasibility of the Ohio River 10 and Ohio River 8 Projects, to be 
located on the Ohio River in Perry County, Indiana and Hancock County, 
Kentucky.
    The proposed Ohio River 8 Project consists of: (1) 1,650 proposed 
20

[[Page 46613]]

kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total installed capacity 
of 33 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line, and (3) appurtenant 
facilities. The FFP Ohio River 8, LLC, project would have an average 
annual generation of 144.54 gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local 
utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Ohio River 8, LLC, 69 Bridge 
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone (978) 232-3536.
    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, (202) 502-6062.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13154) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18467 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ENDEAVOR URANIUM, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Marvin Mitchell, 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 the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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 the
          operation of the Company.


November 12, 2007                 By: /s/ Marvin Mitchell
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Marvin Mitchell
                                      Interim CEO, Vice President of Exploration

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by Registrant for the purposes of
ss.18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification
shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

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

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 Annual Report of Drucker Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Aloysius (Ken) Kow, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), 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 result of operations of the Company.

By:           /s/ Aloysius (Ken) KowName:            Aloysius (Ken) Kow

Title:        Acting Chief Financial Officer

Date: October 15, 2008



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

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation. 

# ACTION:

Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541. 

# SUMMARY:

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On July 2, 2008, the National Science Foundation published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     of permit applications received. A permit was issued on August 5, 2008 to: Kristin M. O'Brien, Permit No. 2009-011.                

Nadene G. Kennedy, 

Permit Officer.

[FR Doc. E8-18317 Filed 8-7-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

65 CADILLAC SQUARE JPMC 2006-CIBC14

REO LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-13299

DTWR, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

/

ORDER APPOINTING FACILITATIVE MEDIATOR

After consultation with the parties concerning the status of their efforts to reach

settlement, the court is informed that both parties desire to employ facilitative mediation.

The parties have consulted with the court and suggested several suitable facilitators. 

The parties sought the court’s guidance in the selection of one of them, and have

agreed with the court that Judy A. O’Neill will be appointed as facilitative mediator.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that JUDY A. O’NEILL is appointed by the court as facilitative

mediator, whose fees and expenses shall be paid on a pro rata basis by the parties,

50% by Plaintiff(s) and 50% by Defendant(s), on a schedule as directed by the

mediator.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the process of such mediation shall proceed in

a manner directed by the mediator. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if the mediator directs that one or more

decision-making representatives of the parties be required to personally attend the
S:\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C3 ORDERS\09-13299.65CADILLAC.MediationAppointment.wpd

mediation, the parties shall comply with such directive. 

It is the intent of the court that the ordered mediation is to proceed during the

month of January, 2011, and that the parties make good faith efforts to reach a binding

and final agreed-upon resolution to the issues that presently divide them.

The mediator is expected only to assist the parties in their good-faith efforts, and

is not expected to render any decision that is the equivalent of binding arbitration nor is

the mediation to proceed under Michigan sanction rules relating to case evaluation.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 21, 2010

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

on this date, December 21, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Lisa G. Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(313) 234-5522
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Complainant, v. G. William BLACKBURN, Jr., Respondent.

No. 94-SC-310-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Sept. 29, 1994.

Dale Wright, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for complainant.

Frank E. Haddad, Jr., Peter L. Ostermil-ler, Louisville, for respondent.

*OPINION AND ORDER*

Pursuant to SCR 3.370(6) and (7), Attorney G. William Blackburn, Jr. of Louisville has requested a review of a recommendation by the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association which was to the effect that Blackburn be suspended from the practice of law for a term of six months. He was found to be guilty of 1) violation of SCR 3.130-1.16(d) by neglecting to timely surrender a client’s file after termination of employment; 2) violation of SCR 3.130-8.1(b) by knowingly failing to respond to a lawful demand for information from disciplinary authority; 3) violation of SCR 3.130-1.3 by failure to timely respond to discovery and failure to appear at a scheduled trial; and 4) violation of SCR 3.130-1.16(d) by, upon learning of his discharge, refusing to timely surrender to successor counsel papers and property to which the client was entitled.

Upon our review of the record, we find that the evidence did not support additional charges that had been instigated against the respondent and for which he was found not guilty. We determine that the respondent has conducted himself in a manner tending to bring the bench and bar into disrepute, but from our independent review of the record and findings, and taking into account that a recommendation for a six-month’s suspension is excessive, we conclude that a 59-day suspension is an appropriate penalty.

IT IS ORDERED that

1) G. William Blackburn, Jr. is suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, commencing with the date of the entry of this order, for a term of 59 days.

2) G. William Blackburn, Jr. shall pay the costs of this action.

LAMBERT, LEIBSON, REYNOLDS, SPAIN and STUMBO, JJ., concur..

*878WINTERSHEIMER, J„ dissents by separate opinion in which STEPHENS, C.J., joins.

ENTERED: September 29, 1994.

/s/ Rubert F. Stephen Chief Justice

WINTERSHEIMER, Justice,

dissenting.

I must respectfully disagree with the opinion and order only in regard to the length of suspension imposed. I would adopt the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association that Mr. Blackburn be suspended from the practice of law for six months.

I do not believe that the recommendation was excessive. The record in this ease indicates that the attorney in question has received three private admonitions, one in 1984, another in 1988 and a third in 1989. I believe it is necessary to consider these three private admonitions in connection with the current breach of professional responsibility and consequently adopt the recommendation of the Board of Governors of the Kentucky Bar Association of six months.

STEPHENS, C.J., joins in this dissent.
HYBRID Coating Technologies Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






Exhibit 10.1

Sixth Amendment to the Licensing Agreement previously entered
into

on the 12th day of July,
2010

Between: 

Nanotech Industries Inc., a Delaware corporation.

hereinafter referred to as “Licensor”

And: 

Nanotech Industries International Inc., a Nevada corporation
(and a wholly owned subsidiary of Hybrid Coating Technologies Inc.) 

hereinafter referred to as “NTI”

(collectively referred to as the
“Parties”) 

WHEREAS the Parties previously entered into a Licensing
Agreement on July 12, 2010 (“Licensing Agreement”), into an Amendment Agreement
on March 17, 2011, into a Second Amendment Agreement on July 7, 2011, into a
Third Amendment Agreement dated June 28, 2013, into a Fourth Amendment Agreement
dated December 13, 2013 and into a Fifth Amendment Agreement dated March 31,
2014 (collectively the “Agreement”); 

WHEREAS the Parties would like to amend the Agreement to
extend in writing the deadline of the one-time royalty payment for the Option to
Manufacture and Sell in the European Continent Territory; 

WHEREAS to this end the Parties have agreed to enter
into this Sixth Amendment to the Licensing Agreement (“Sixth Amendment
Agreement”): 





	 	1. 	
      Pursuant to the terms of the Licensing Agreement, the
      deadline for the payment of the one-time royalty fee of $1,250,000 to the
      Licensor by NTI for the Option to Manufacture and Sell in the European
      Continent Territory has been extended, and shall be payable within 42
      months from the date of the exercise of the Option.

	 	 	 
	 	2. 	
      The Agreement, as amended by this Sixth Amendment
      Agreement, remains in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and
      confirmed. Provisions of the Agreement that have not been amended or
      terminated by this Sixth Amendment Agreement remain in full force and
      effect, unamended.

	 	 	 
	 	3. 	
      The Parties expressly warrant and guarantee that they
      have obtained all necessary requisite approvals and that they have the
      authority to enter into this Sixth Amendment Agreement.

	 	 	 
	 	4. 	
      The Preamble to this Sixth Amendment Agreement is
      incorporated herein by this reference and made a material part of this
      Sixth Amendment Agreement.

	 	 	 
	 	5. 	
      This Sixth Amendment Agreement may be signed in one or
      more counterparts, each of which so signed shall be deemed to be an
      original and such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same
      instrument.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and
delivered this Sixth Amendment Agreement on April 9, 2014.

Nanotech Industries International Inc.
By: /s/:
Joseph Kristul__________ 
Title: President and CEO 

Nanotech Industries Inc.
By: /s/: Joseph
Kristul                       
Title:
President and CEO