alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3

                      FIRST AMENDMENT TO COMPOSITE BY-LAWS
                                       OF
                               ORIOLE HOMES CORP.
                               DATED APRIL 2, 2002

         At a duly convened meeting of the Board of Directors (the "Board") of
Oriole Homes Corp. (the "Corporation") held on April 2, 2002, the Board adopted
the following amendment to the Corporation's Composite By-Laws through February
29, 1992 ("By-Laws") pursuant to Article XXIV of the By-Laws.

         A.       Article III, Section 2 of the By-Laws is amended in its
                  entirety to read as follows:

                  2.       ANNUAL MEETINGS. The annual meeting of the
                           shareholders of the Corporation for the election of
                           Directors and for the transaction of such other
                           business as may properly come before such meeting
                           shall be held on a day and at a time and place
                           designated from time to time by the Board of
                           Directors, provided, however, that there shall be an
                           annual meeting every calendar year.

         B.       All other provisions of the By-Laws remain in full force and
                  effect.



/s/ HARRY LEVY                              /s/ RICHARD LEVY
--------------------------------------      ----------------------------------
Harry Levy, Vice-Chairman of the Board      Richard Levy, Chairman of the Board
and Secretary
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00152-CR

CHRISTOPHER VANSICKLE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-1550-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Christopher Vansickle appeals the trial court’s denial of his Motion for 

Time Credit Dispute Resolution, in which he sought credit on his sentence for time he 

spent in a state substance abuse facility as a condition of his community supervision. The 

State has filed a Motion to Dismiss Vansickle’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the 

grounds that Vansickle is inappropriately appealing the denial of a motion for judgment 
Vansickle v. State Page 2

nunc pro tunc. 1 Whether construed as an appeal from the denial of a request for a nunc 

pro tunc judgment or of a request for credit for time served, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal.

The right of appeal in criminal cases is conferred by the Legislature, and a 

defendant may appeal only from judgments of conviction or orders authorized as 

appealable. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02; TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2); see also 

Ragston v. State, 424 S.W.3d 49, 52 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (“‘[T]he standard for 

determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the 

appeal is authorized by law.’” (quoting Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694, 696-97 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008))). The appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a 

post-judgment denial of a motion for credit for time served. Abbott, 271 S.W.3d at 697.

Because we lack jurisdiction, this appeal is dismissed. As our dismissal is not 

based upon the grounds raised in the State’s Motion to Dismiss, we dismiss the State’s 

motion as moot.

Notwithstanding that we are dismissing this appeal, Vansickle may file a motion 

for rehearing with this Court within 15 days after this opinion and judgment are rendered 

if he believes this opinion and judgment are erroneously based on inaccurate information 

or documents. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. Moreover, if Vansickle desires to have the opinion 

 

1

In his brief filed on July 11, 2019, Vansickle refers to his motion as a “pro se motion Nunc Pro Tunc.” 

However, in his reply to the State’s Motion to Dismiss, Vansickle clarifies that the order he is appealing is 

not the denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc but the denial of a motion for credit for time served.
Vansickle v. State Page 3

and judgment of this Court reviewed by filing a petition for discretionary review, that 

petition must be filed with the Court of Criminal Appeals within 30 days after either the 

day this Court's judgment is rendered or the day the last timely motion for rehearing is 

overruled by this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 68.2(a).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 11, 2019

Do not publish

[CR25]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 6934** 

ROBERT EARLE RAMBO , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Roanoke
. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. ( 7:12

- cv - 00034

- JLK

- RSB )

Submitted : September 2 5 , 2012 Decided: October 24, 2012

Before DIAZ and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Robert Earle Rambo, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Robert Earle Rambo seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253 (c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standar d by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitut ional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rambo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSE D
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 81

To oppose Cuba’s admission as a member of international financial

institutions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 4, 1995

Mr. DIAZ-BALART introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To oppose Cuba’s admission as a member of international

financial institutions.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. UNITED STATES OPPOSITION TO CUBAN MEM4 BERSHIP IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL

5 INSTITUTIONS.

6 The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct each

7 United States executive director to an international finan8 cial institution to use the voice and vote of the United

9 States to oppose the admission of Cuba as a member of

10 such institution until Cuba holds free and fair internation-
2

HR 81 IH

1 ally-supervised elections and commits to compensate

2 United States persons for property expropriated in Cuba.

Æ
**C
      O N V E R T I B L E   P R O M I S S O R Y   N O T
      E**





$24,973.85


January
      1,
      2007


Denver,
      Colorado





FOR
      VALUE RECEIVED, PARK-PREMIER MINING
      COMPANY, a Utah corporation ("Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order
      of
      Lee Family or its assigns ("Holder"), at 1708 Essex Court, St. Charles, Illinois
      60174 or at such other place Holder may from time to time designate in writing,
      in lawful money of the United States of America, the principal sum of Twenty
      Four Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Three and 85/100 US Dollars ($24,973.85),
      together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of Twelve Percent
      (12%)
      per annum, on demand of Holder; provided, however, if not sooner paid, the
      entire principal amount outstanding and accrued interest thereon, shall be
      due
      and payable on December 31, 2007.





This
      Note
      may be converted into shares of Maker's common stock at the conversion price
      of
      $.10 per share or such other conversion price as the board of directors of
      Maker
      may deem appropriate, not in excess of $.10 per share, until the due date
      hereof, at the Holder's option.





This
      Note
      is subject to prepayment in whole or in part, upon ten (10) days prior written
      notice to Holder, at the option of Maker without penalty but subject to exercise
      of Holder’s conversion rights.  Prepayments shall be applied first to
      interest accrued and then to principal due hereunder.





In
      case
      this Note shall not be paid in full whenever it shall become due, the Maker
      agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable
      attorney's fees, not to exceed 15% of the unpaid balance.





All
      rights and obligations hereunder shall be governed by the laws of the State
      of
      Colorado, without application of its choice or conflict of law principles.
      If
      any part of the assets or capital stock of Maker is sold or transferred without
      Holder’s prior written consent, except sales and transfers in the ordinary
      course of business and except transfers by devise, descent or by operation
      of
      law upon the death of a joint tenant: (1) Holder may, at Holder’s option,
      declare all the sums due under this Note to be immediately due and payable,
      and
      (2) if the sale or transfer involves substantially all of the assets of Maker,
      the transferee shall be deemed to have assumed all of the obligations of Maker
      under this Note. This Note is unsecured.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has signed this Note effective as of the date first
      above written.





Description:  Unreimbursed
      Expenses


PARK-PREMIER
      MINING COMPANY








By: /s/
      Robert W.
      Dunlap


Robert
      W. Dunlap,
      President
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6319] 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects in the exhibition: “Shigeyuki Kihara: Living Photographs,” imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, NY, from on or about October 7, 2008, until on or about February 1, 2009, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Julie Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

C. Miller Crouch, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-18962 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
226 So.2d 87

#### OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

No. 196.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 4, 1969.

The House of Representatives

State Capitol

Montgomery, Alabama

Gentlemen:

This acknowledges your request of July 30, 1969, for an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of House Bill 1117, which is a local bill.

Several years ago the members of this Court felt constrained to take the position that “no more advisory opinions should be issued by the members of this Court when the only questions, constitutional or otherwise, involved purely local matters.” See Opinion of the Justices, 269 Ala. 127, 130, 111 So.2d 605, 608.

We followed that policy in Opinion of the Justices, 281 Ala. 187, 200 So.2d 486, where the request from the House of Representatives concerned the constitutionality of “H. B. 118, a bill proposing a local law for Marion County.” We also followed that policy in Opinion of the Justices, 281 Ala. 231, 201 So.2d 103, where the Senate of Alabama had requested an advisory opinion as to the constitutionality of “Senate Bill 214, which is a local bill.”

We hope that the distinguished members of the House of Representatives understand that this policy was adopted and has been followed in order that the members of this court can devote themselves to the preparation of opinions in the large number of cases which come here by appeal and to answering requests for advisory opinions concerning proposed legislation of state-wide application

With due respect we must decline to answer your inquiry.

Respectfully submitted,

J. ED LIVINGSTON Chief Justice

THOS. S. LAWSON

ROBERT T. SIMPSON

PELHAM J. MERRILL

JAMES S. COLEMAN JR.

ROBERT B. HARWOOD

JAMES N. BLOODWORTH Associate Justices.
Exhibit 32.1

                      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Levcor
         International, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period ended June
         30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
         date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert A. Levinson, Chief Executive
         Officer of the Company, certify, 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.

Dated:  August 14, 2003

By: /s/ Robert A. Levinson
    -----------------------------------
    Robert A. Levinson
    Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 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.

                                    Page 28
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>                                                                      
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
                               ORION CAPITAL CORPORATION
                         COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                                       (UNAUDITED)
                    (000s omitted - except for per common share data)

                                         Three months ended    Nine months ended
                                            September 30,        September 30,  
                                         ------------------    -----------------
                                          1997     1996        1997    1996
                                          ----     ----        ----    ----
<S>                                      <C>      <C>        <C>      <C>      
Computation of weighted average number of 
  common and equivalent shares outstanding:
 PRIMARY -
  Weighted average number of shares
    outstanding ......................   27,335    27,328    27,313    27,428   
  Dilutive effect of stock options and 
    stock awards .....................      546       374       515       370   
                                         ------    ------    ------    ------
  Weighted average number of common and                
    equivalent shares ................   27,881    27,702    27,828    27,798  
                                         ======    ======    ======    ======
Net earnings attributable to common
  stockholders .......................  $24,526   $24,361   $79,385   $62,821  
                                         ======    ======    ======    ======
Net earnings per common share ........  $   .88   $   .88   $  2.85   $  2.26  
                                         ======    ======    ======    ======
 FULLY DILUTED - 
  Weighted average number of shares 
    outstanding .......................  27,335    27,328    27,313    27,428  
                                                                               
  Dilutive effect of stock options and 
    stock awards ......................     625       388       558       388   
                                         ------    ------     -----    ------  
  Weighted average number of common and
    equivalent shares ................   27,960    27,716    27,871    27,816  
                                         ======    ======    ======    ====== 
Net earnings attributable to common 
  stockholders .......................  $24,526   $24,361   $79,395   $62,821  
                                         ======    ======    ======    ======   
Net earnings per common share ........  $   .88   $   .88   $  2.85   $  2.26  
                                        =======   =======   =======   =======
</TABLE>                                  Page 26
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22
- 0731 TCF ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a MALMQUIST CONTRUCTION

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. RAMES, INC. formerly d/b/a CENTRAL INSURANCE AGENCY,

Defendant and Appellant, ORDER OF MEDIATOR APPOINTMENT

This appeal being subject to M.R.App.P. 7, and the parties having failed to jointly and timely select a mediator under M.R.App.P., 7(4),(c), IT IS ORDERED THAT **Leslie Budewitz ,**  whose name appears next on the list of attorn eys desiring appointment as mediators for Money Judgments appeals which is maintained pursuant to M.R.App.P., 7(4)(e), is hereby appointed to conduct the mediation process required by M.R.App.P., 7(5), and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time periods set forth in M.R.App.P., 7(5)(d) shall run from the date of this order of appointment. A true copy of this order is being mailed to counsel of record for the parties, or to the parties individually if not represented by counsel, on the date hereof. DATED th is 10 Feb 2023
.

Bowen Greenwood , Clerk of the Supreme Court
c: Marcel A. Quinn, Todd A. Hammer, Jesse Beaudette 02/10/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0731
Motion Granted in Part and Denied in Part and Order filed April 13 , 2021

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 20 - 00827 - CV

____________ THOMPSON HANCOCK WITTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. , Appellant V. BRAZOS PRESBYTERIAN HOMES, INC. , Appellee On Appeal from the 55th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016 - 81155

____________ NO. 14 - 2 1 - 00 091 - CV

____________ THOMPSON HANCOCK WITTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. , Appellant V. STANLEY SPURLING & HAM ILTON, INC. , Appellee On Appeal from the 55th District Court2 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016 - 81155 - A



### ORDER Appellant filed an agreed motion to consolidate these two appeals and to set a briefing schedule. We deny the request to consolidate and grant the request to set a briefing schedule. When multiple notices of appeal from the same judgment or order have been filed by adverse parties, the court encourages the parties to consider requesting consolidation of those appeals. However, these appeals are not from the same judgment or order, nor are they from the same trial court cause. Appeal 14

- 20

- 00827

- CV is an acc elerated appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss under chapter 150 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code in trial court cause 2016

- 81115. Appeal 14

- 21

- 00091

- CV is a non

- accelerated appeal from the final judgment in trial court cause 2016

- 9115

- A. Th e clerk’s records in the two appeals differ ; the record in appeal 14

- 20

- 00827

- CV comprises eight volumes, and the record in appeal 14

- 21

- 00091

- CV comprises four volumes. Consolidation of these appeals is not appropriate. Per the parties’ request, and subject to further motions to extend time, the co urt establishes the following briefing schedule:
a. Appellant’s brief in each appeal is due on or before April 21, 2021; b. Appellee Brazos Presbyterian Homes, Inc .’s brief is due 30 days after appellant’s brief is filed in appeal 14

- 20

- 00827

- CV ; c. Appellee Stanle y Spurling & Hamilton, Inc. ’s brief is due 30 days after appellant’s brief is filed in 14

- 21

- 00091

- CV ; and3

d. Appellant’s reply brief in each appeal is due 20 days after the day the appellee’s brief in that appeal is filed. Appellant ’s motion asks that it be permitted to file a single brief that applies to both appeals. The court will not prohibit appellant from doing so but expresses no opinion as to whether such a brief is advisable under the circumstances of these appeals. Any document meant to be filed in both appeals shall bear both appeal numbers. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Poissant
.
#### Patrick Dowdell, Appellant, v. Lackawanna Steel Company, Respondent.

Motion for leave to appeal to Court of Appeals denied, with ten dollars costs.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnnie Webb, Junior, Defendant-Appellent.

Gen. No. 50,587. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Third Division.

October 27, 1966.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Albert Friedman, Frederick F. Cohn, James J. Doherty, Morton Zwick, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Zagel, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by PRESIDING JUSTICE SULLIVAN. Not to be published in full.