alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 28, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00138 - CV IN THE MATTER OF Z.T. On Appeal from the 305th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JD - 20 - 00919 - X

O RDER Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order certifying her to be tried as an adult. 1 Before the Court is appellant’s third motion for an extension of time to file her brief on the merits. She requests a sev en - day extension “from the date the Record is supplemented with the missing Exhibits.” The supplemental reporter’s record with the exhibits was filed with the Court today. We GRANT appellant’s motion ONLY TO THE EXTENT that we extend the time to JUNE 30, 2021

.

1 As reasonably possible, courts of appeal must ensure that juvenile certification appeals are brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 56.01(c), (h

- 1); s ee also Order Ac celerating Juvenile Certification Appeals and Requiring Juvenile Courts to Give Notice of the Right to an Immediate Appeal , Texas Supreme Court, Misc. Docket No. 15

- 9156 (Tex. 2015) (which may be accessed at the following address: http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1055398/159156.pdf.).We specifically caution appellant that failure to file a brief by June 30,

2021 , may result in the Court abating the appeal and remanding to the trial court for a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. /s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
##### 



GARDNER DENVER, INC.
 
 paragraph 1),
 WITNESSETH THAT:
   Benefits
 Terms of Award
 Grant Date
 Performance Period
 Base Salary Factor
 Performance Targets
 -1-




---



##### 



Threshold Performance 
4%
    
    Target Performance
8%
    
    Maximum Performance
12%
 Payment Opportunity
 Performance Target Achieved
    
    Payment OpportunityThreshold Performance
    
    
    50
    %Target Performance
    
    
    100
    %Maximum Performance
    
    
    200
    %
  Date of Termination
 Target Performance
 Threshold Performance
 Maximum Performance
 Earnings Before Taxes.
 -2-




---



##### 



Award
   Payment
 Assignment and Transfer
 Acceleration of Payment Upon Change of Control
 Withholding
 Miscellaneous
 -3-




---



##### 



Governing Law
 Heirs and Successors
 Administration
 Not an Employment Contract
 Amendment
 Entire Agreement
  Gardner Denver, Inc.
    
    ParticipantBy:Its:
    
    Date:
 -4-
210 La. 1078

#### STATE v. MITCHELL.

No. 38243.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 13, 1946.

J. Bennett Johnston, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edwin L. Blewer, Dist. Atty., of Shreveport, for appellee.

HAMITER, Justice.

Defendant, Milton Mitchell, or Sonny Mitchell, was tried in the Juvenile Court of Caddo Parish under an affidavit alleging that on or about March 29, 1946, he “being a person over the age of 17 years, did intentionally mistreat a juvenile under the age of 17 years, to-wit: George Walker, Jr., age 16 years, by assaulting said juvenile with his fists, causing him unjustifiable pain and suffering * * The offense charged, a misdemeanor termed cruelty to juveniles, is defined in Section 93 of the Louisiana Criminal Code as “the intentional or criminally negligent mistreatment or neglect, by anyone over the age of seventeen, of any child under the age of seventeen whereby unjustifiable pain or suffering is caused to said child.”

During the course of the proceedings defendant entered a plea of former jeopardy, the basis of which was his previous trial, conviction, and sentence (a fine of $15) in the City Court of Shreveport, Caddo Parish, for the offense of simple assault allegedly committed on the same juvenile and on the same date.

The Juvenile Judge overruled the special plea, adjudged defendant guilty, and sentenced him “to pay a fine of $15.00 and serve ten days in the Caddo Parish jail and in default of payment of fine to serve an additional 15 days in the Caddo Parish jail.” Defendant appealed.

When the case was called for a hearing in this court defense counsel was not present to favor us with oral argument, and no brief was filed by him. Nor did defendant appear in proper person. Under these circumstances it is fair to assume that the appeal has been abandoned. Nevertheless, we have examined the record of the proceedings in the juvenile court and are not convinced that any error has been committed.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### CALHOUN v. HODGES.

No. 5411.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 30, 1937.

D. W. Gibson, of Harrisonburg, for appellant.

J. C. McGee, of Harrisonburg, and Hudson, Potts, Bernstein & Snellings, of Monroe, for appellee.

HAMITER, Judge.

Defendant appealed from a judgment sustaining a plea of estoppel filed by the General Motors • Acceptance Corporation which he had called in warranty.

No appearance in this court has been made by appellant, either through oral argument or brief. This indicates and presumes an acquiescence in the judgment and an abandonment of the appeal on his part. Quilter v. Kearns, 135 La. 807, 66 So. 229; Salassi et al. v. Dougherty et al., 138 La. 1089, 71 So. 194, 195; Brenard Manufacturing Company v. Clawson Mercantile Company, 10 La.App. 209, 120 So. 649; Desoto Securities Company, Inc., v. Walker (La.App.) 170 So. 277.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029391
<NAME> PAYCO AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,186
<INVENTORY>                                     68,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               106,105
<PP&E>                                          87,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                  52,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           68,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,654
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,842
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,596
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,277)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,496)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,781)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,781)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Troy MOSES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nurul CHOWDHURY, M.D.; P.A. Hamu, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-7306.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 2002.

Decided Nov. 15, 2002.

Troy Moses, Appellant Pro Se. Philip Melton Andrews, George Eugene Brown, Kramon & Graham, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Troy Moses appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Moses v. Chowdhury,*No. CA-02-855-JFM (D.Md. Aug. 2, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
18475.

#### Delinski *v.*Dunn *et al.*

Argued January 13, 1954

Decided February 9, 1954.

*Randall Evans, Jr.,*for plaintiff in error.

*Eugene Cook, Attorney-General, J. R. Parham, Assistant Attorney-General, Durwood T. Pye,*contra.

■Duckworth, Chief Justice.

This is the fourth appearance of this case in this court, the others being *Delinski*v. *Dunn,*206 *Ga.*825 (59 S. E. 2d 248); s. c., 207 *Ga.*723 (64 S. E. 2d 44); s. c., 209 *Ga.*402 (73 S. E. 2d 171). The judgment here excepted to is one where the judge of the Superior Court of McDuffie County, on certiorari, reversed a judgment of the ordinary in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by Delinski, a State prisoner, which was rendered by .default under Code § 38-803 because of the alleged failure to properly respond to a motion to produce the prison records of the petitioner. The foregoing Code section has no application whatever in a habeas corpus proceeding; and, as held by this court in *Solesbee*v. *Balkcom,*207 *Ga.*352 (61 S. E. 2d 471), in such proceedings the burden is on the petitioner to prove the alleged grounds of illegal detention. In the absence of such proof here, the judgment ordering his release from custody was erroneous, and the court did not err in sustaining the certiorari and remanding the case to the ordinary for another hearing.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6347

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HENRY CHESTER, a/k/a Zeke,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District 

Judge. (4:94-cr-00665-CMC-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Chester, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, 

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Chester appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion to reduce his 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Chester, No. 4:94-cr-00665-

CMC-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 6, 2013). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of the President 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 China RuiTai International Holdings Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Dian Min Ma, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, 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.  /s/ Dian Min MaChief Executive Officer Date: May 20, 2009
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

 

                Weconsent to the use in the Prospectus Supplements filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)dated September 26, 2007 to Registration Statements No. 333-133184and 333-136297 on Form S-1 of our report dated September 25, 2006(September 24, 2007 as to Note 4), relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (whichreport expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an emphasis-of-a-matterparagraph relating to discontinued operations), appearing in this Annual Reporton Form 10-K of Neiman Marcus, Inc. for the year ended July 28, 2007.

 

 

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

Dallas,Texas

September 24,2007

 

1

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Otter Tail Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Kevin G. Moug, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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:



| | 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.

| |  |                                      
| |  | -------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ Kevin G. Moug                    
| |  |                                      
| |  | Kevin G. Moug                        
| |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
| |  | November 14, 2003
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Applera Corporation(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis L. Winger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 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. |

|                    |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|
| /s/ Dennis L. Winger    |   |   |
|                         |   |   |
| Chief Financial Officer |   |   |

Date: May 13, 2004

 

----
Exhibit
      35.1




Servicer
      Compliance Statement of Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation









**NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION**




**OFFICER'S
      CERTIFICATE**




The
      undersigned, Steven R. Lambert, President and Chief Executive Officer of NISSAN
      MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does
      hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as
      follows:




(1)  The
      undersigned has caused a review of the activities of the Company, in its
      capacity as Servicer, during the period April 25, 2006 through December 31,
      2006
      (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance pursuant to that certain Sale
      and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 25, 2006 (the “Agreement”), by and
      among the Company, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as Seller, and Nissan
      Auto Receivables 2006-B Owner Trust, as Issuer, to be conducted under his
      supervision; and




(2)  To
      the
      best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has
      fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects
      throughout the Reporting Period except as otherwise described in Annex A
      attached hereto.




This
      Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Item 1123 of the Securities
      and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued asset-backed
      securities. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the
      meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.




IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 30 th day of
      March, 2007.




/s/
      Steven R.
      Lambert


Steven
      R.
      Lambert


President
      and Chief
      Executive Officer









































32









**ANNEX
      A**




·
            The
                Company is aware of one occasion during the Reporting Period when
                it did
                not remit to the Collection Account on the first Business Day after
                receipt thereof a sufficient amount to cover all payments received
                by or
                on behalf of the Obligors on or in respect of the Receivables (as
                required
                in Section 5.02(a) of the Agreement). It did, however, timely deposit
                an
                estimated (but insufficient) amount, determined in good faith, and
                remitted the difference on the Record Date. The Company believes
                that no
                material impact to the securityholders resulted from these errors
                and it
                is exploring procedural changes to achieve full compliance with this
                requirement going forward.














































































33
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

July 12, 2004

Mr. Alan Jacob Bojorquez

Bovey Akers, & Bojorquez, LLP 

12325 Hymeadow Dr., Suite 3-200

Austin, TX 78750

Honorable  James  Barden

Medina County Judge

1100 16th Street

Hondo, TX 78861

Mr.  Ralph  J.  Bernsen

Medina County Attorney 

1100 16th Street, Room 301

Hondo, TX 78861

RE:Case Number:  04-0619

Court of Appeals Number:  04-04-00487-CV

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  DR. ROBERT FITZGERALD, MD

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas dismissed as moot the emergency motion for relief in the above-referenced case and issued the enclosed per curiam opinion.

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

**Case No. 04-0619Page 2**
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**P&F INDUSTRIES, INC.**

 

**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 on Form 10-Q of P&F Industries, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Richard A. Horowitz, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, 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.

 

 
| /s/  Richard A. Horowitz    |   |
|-----------------------------|--------|
| Richard A. Horowitz         |
| Principal Executive Officer |
|                        |
|                        |
| August 13, 2008        |

 

----
PROMISSORY NOTE AMENDMENT No. 1


 


This PROMISSORY NOTE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 (the “Amendment”) is made as of May 2, 2014 (the “Amendment Date”) by and
between DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. (the “Borrower”), a corporation formed under the laws of the State of
New York, with offices at 28 East Main Street, Suite 1525, Rochester, New York 14614 and CONGREGATION NOAM ELIMELECH (the “Lender”).


 


This Amendment amends
the Promissory Note (“Note”), dated May 24, 2013, made among Borrower and Lender, to extend the Note’s
Maturity Date from May 24, 2014 to May 24, 2015. All capitalized terms used herein without definition shall have the meanings ascribed
to them in the Note.


 


The parties agree as
follows:


 


1.
   Section 1 of the Note shall be, and hereby is, amended to read in its entirety as follows:


 


		“1.	 Maturity. The aggregate outstanding Principal
Amount, together with all accrued interest thereon and expenses incurred by the Lender in connection herewith (cumulatively, the
“Outstanding Amount”), shall be due and payable in full on the earliest to occur of (the earliest of such events being
the “Maturity Date”): (i) May 24, 2015 (the “Scheduled Maturity Date”) and (ii) the acceleration of this
Note upon the occurrence of an Event of Default.”



 


2.   Note Ratified.
Except as expressly amended hereby, the Note is in all respects ratified and confirmed, and all of the terms, provisions and conditions
thereof shall be and remain in full force and effect, and this Amendment and all of its terms, provisions and conditions shall
be deemed to be a part of the Note.


 


3.   No
Events of Default. The Borrower confirms that, as of the date hereof, there exists no condition or event that constitutes
(or that would after expiration of applicable grace or cure periods constitute) an Event of Default.


 


4.   Costs
and Expenses. Borrower agrees to pay any and all reasonable costs incurred in connection with preparation for closing, the
closing, and post-closing items relating to this Amendment.


 


5.   Governing
Law. This Amendment, together with all of the rights and obligations of the parties hereto, shall be construed and interpreted
in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, excluding the laws applicable to conflicts or choice of law.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 






    	 



    	 



    




 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives by their signatures below.


 


 





	 	CONGREGATION NOAM ELIMELECH (Lender)
	 	 
	 	/s/ Mayer Laufer
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: Mayer Laufer
	 	Title: President
	 	 
	 	DOCUMENT SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. (Borrower)
	 	 
	 	/s/ Jeffrey Ronaldi
	 	 
	 	 
	 	By: Jeffrey Ronaldi
	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer















 






    	2