alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Thomas Chr istopher and



# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

November 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00735

- CV

Brian C. SIMCOE

, Appellant

v.

Thomas CHRISTOPHER and Catrina Christopher, Appellee s

From the 45th Judicial District Court, B exar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2012

- CI

- 15519 Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court signed a final judgment on July 9, 2014. Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial on August 7, 2014. Therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on October 7,
2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on October 22, 2014. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal
within the fifteen

- day grace period allowed by Rule 26.3, he did not file a motion for e xtension
of time.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
26.1 but within the fifteen

- day grace period provided b y Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for
extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. See id. ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to file, within fifteen days from the date of this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely

m anner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________ K aren Angelini, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 5th day of November, 2014

.

___________________________________ K eith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Brenda K. Taite

v. Civil No. 06-cv-428-JM

Paula Morin

O R D E R

Before me are (1) the Motion to Substitute the United States

for Paula Morin (document no. 5); (2) the Motion to Remand

(document no. 9); and (3) the Motion to Challenge the Scope of

Employment Certification (document no. 16). 

Discussion

Plaintiff brought suit in the Claremont District Court

alleging that her co-worker, Paula Morin, threw a calendar at her

and struck her in the face. The United States Attorney removed

the action and moved to substitute the United States for Ms.

Morin certifying that Ms. Morin was “acting within the scope of

(her) office or employment at the time of the incident out of

which the claim arose . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d)(1). The

Westfall Act provides that the “certification of the Attorney

General shall conclusively establish scope of office or

employment for purposes of removal.” § 2679(d)(2) (emphasis

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 35 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 3
2

added). 

It is clear that the Attorney General can remove and can

certify for purposes of removal, but it is equally clear that

plaintiff may present her objections to the scope-of-employment

certification to this court and have this court determine whether

Ms. Morin was acting within the scope of her employment. See

Gutierrez de Martinez v. Lamagno, 515 U.S. 417, 436-37 (1995). 

The burden is on the plaintiff to show that Ms. Morin was not

acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the

incident. Schrob v. Catterson, 967 F.2d 929, 936 (3d. Cir.

1992). 

The incident occurred in Vermont where both parties worked. 

The question of scope of employment under the Federal Tort Claims

Act is determined by the law of respondeat superior of Vermont,

the state where the alleged tortious conduct occurred. See

Aversa v. United States, 99 F.3d 1200, 1209 (1996). Under

Vermont law conduct is within the scope of employment when: 

*2(a) it is of the kind the servant is

employed to perform; (b) it occurs

substantially within the authorized time and

space limits; it is actuated, at least in

part, by a purpose to serve the master; and

(c) in a case in which the force is

intentionally used by the servant against

another, it is not unexpected by the master.

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 35 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 3
1If the parties are prepared to do so the hearing could be

held at the time of the preliminary pretrial.

3

Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118, 123, 730 A.2d 1086

(1999) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 228). 

The resolution of this question resolves all motions and

cannot be decided without an evidentiary hearing. The Clerk is

ordered to schedule the hearing.1 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: March 5, 2007

cc: T. David Plourde, Esq.

 Brenda K. Taite, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00428-JM Document 35 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-10-PB

Dung Nguyen, et al.

AMENDED ORDER

Defendant, thru counsel, has moved to continue the June 5,

2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for additional time

to negotiate a plea agreement or prepare for trial. The

government and co-defendant, Phuong Luong, do not object to a

continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 5, 2007 to October 10, 2007. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 25 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to

September 24, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 21, 2007

cc: Stanley Norkunas, Esq.

Adam Bernstein, Esq.

Jennifer Davis, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00010-PB Document 25 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1991...... 31.86 60.97 25.25 15.56 15.08 129.31 3.64 14.90 46.59 539.87 

1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 

1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 

1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 

1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 

1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 

1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 

1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 

1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 

2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 

2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2000: Q1... 31.07 38.53 29.88 27.57 47.97 43.51 3.82 15.15 47.72 256.28 

 Q2... 25.36 40.29 23.29 20.10 23.30 58.50 3.97 14.76 45.62 255.62  Q3... 22.88 56.90 23.79 18.06 25.56 36.16 3.50 14.83 43.59 273.03 

 Q4... 25.90 40.24 27.02 18.56 20.65 54.79 4.16 15.11 44.23 252.17 

2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01  Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70 

 Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 

2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43 

 Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62 

 Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 

2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.61 43.91 32.67 18.01 28.73 55.73 3.72 14.67 48.45 241.93 

 Q3... 27.75 78.05 40.90 17.84 37.37 65.70 3.53 14.83 46.45 319.67  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 153 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 153

              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2001

  Mr. Pitts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES.

    (a) In General.--Subtitle B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes) is hereby 
repealed.
    (b) Effective Date.--The repeal made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to estates of decedents dying, and transfers made, after the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53853]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21703]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Notification of Cancellation of Meeting of the Defense Advisory 
Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (DAB-ESGR)

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of cancelled open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the cancellation of the meeting of the 
Defense Advisory Board for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve 
scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2008 (1300-1500 hrs). The meeting 
is cancelled due to lack of a quorum.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MAJ Elaine M. Gullotta at 703-696-1385 
ext 540, or email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73161f121a1d165d14061f1f1c070712331c00175d1e1a1f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="650009040c0b004b021009090a111104250a16014b080c09">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Defense announced this 
open meeting in a notice that was published in the Federal Register (73 
FR 44973) dated August 1, 2008.

    Dated: September 11, 2008.
Robert L. Cushing, Jr.,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8-21703 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
CGse 1 :07-cv-00090-JD DOcument 1 B Filed 06/02 1 2009 Page 1©f 3

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OP NIlW NAWP8NIRE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR T

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUN - 4 2009

United States of America,

Plaintiff, FILED

V . CivilNo . 07-90-JD

Melissa Long Murphy a/k/a

Melissa Enayat-Robinson ,

Defendant ,

and

St . Francis of Assisi Parish,

Garnishee .

ASSENTED-TO FINAL ORDER OF CONTINUING GARNISHMENT

The parties, the United States of America, plaintiff, and

Melissa Enayat-Robinson, defendant, agree and stipulate as

follows :

1 . A Writ of Continuing Garnishment, directed to Garnishee,

has been duly issued and served upon the Garnishee on May 18,

2009 . Pursuant to the Writ of Continuing Garnishment, the

Garnishee filed an Answer on May 27, 2009, stating that at the

time of service of the Writ, it had in its possession, custody,

or control, personal property in the form of non-exempt

disposable earnings belonging to and due defendant, Melissa

Enayat-Robinson, and that Garnishee was indebted to defendant in

the bi-weekly non-exempt disposable amount of approximately

$209 .51 .

2 . The defendant, Melissa Enayat-Robinson, was served with

a copy of the Application, Clerk's Notice and Writ of Continuing

Garnishment on May 16, 2009 .

3 . The defendant, Melissa Enayat-Robinson, waives her right

to a hearing pursuant to 28 U .S .C . § 3205 .

Case 1:07-cv-00090-JD Document 19 Filed 06/04/09 Page 1 of 3
Case 1 :07-cv-00090-JD Doeument 18 Filed 06/02/2009 Page 2 of 3

4 . The parties agree and stipulate to the entry of a final

order of continuing garnishment against the defendant, Melissa

Enayat-Robinson, in the amount of seventy five and 00/100 dollars

($75 .00) from the defendant's bi-weekly non-exempt disposable

earnings from the first full pay period after May 18, 2009, until

the Judgment is paid in full or the Garnishee no longer has

possession, custody, or control of any property belonging to the

defendant or until further Order of this Court .

5 . Payments shall be made payable to U .S . Department of

Justice and mailed to U .S . Attorney's Office, 53 Pleasant Street,

4`h Floor, Concord, NH 03301 .

6 . The defendant shall keep the United States currently

informed, in writing, of any change in her employment, place of

residence, or telephone number . Defendant shall provide such

information to the United States Attorney's Office at the address

listed in paragraph 5 above .

Respectfully submitted ,

MELISSA ENAYAT-ROBINSON MICHAEL J . GUNNISON

Pro Se Defendant Acting United States Attorne y

By : /s/ Melissa Enayat-Robinson By : /s/ Michael T . McCormack

Melissa Enayat-Robinson Michael T . McCormack (16470)

66 Pepperidge Drive Assistant U .S . Attorney

Manchester, NH 03103 53 Pleasant Street, 4"' Floo r

Concord, NH 03301

Michael .McCormack2@usdoj .gov

Dated : June 2, 2009 Dated : June 2, 200 9

2

Case 1:07-cv-00090-JD Document 19 Filed 06/04/09 Page 2 of 3
Case 1 :07-cv-00090-JD Goci3ment 18 Filed 0 6r0212011 9 Papc: 3 of 3

APPROVED AND SO ORDERED THIS tj DAY OF , 2009 .

3

Case 1:07-cv-00090-JD Document 19 Filed 06/04/09 Page 3 of 3
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 Cash  Technologies,  Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ended August 31, 2005,  as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  being,
Bruce Korman,  Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  and Edmund King,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  respectfully,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.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 operation of the Company.


Dated: October 17, 2005


/s/ Bruce Korman                                /s/ Edmund King
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer


A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Section  906), or other  document  authenticating,
acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the signature  that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906,
has been  provided  to Cash  Technologies,  Inc.  and will be  retained  by Cash
Technologies,  Inc. and furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.


                                       32
Schedule



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Schedule to the Form of the 
 Amended and
Restated Indemnification Agreement 
  
 The Amended and Restated Indemnification
Agreements between Sunoco, Inc. and the directors, executive officers, trustees, fiduciaries, employees or agents named below are identical in all material respects. 
  

			
	 Employee

	  	Date of Agreement


	 Terence P. Delaney
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Michael H. R. Dingus
	  	March 4, 2004
	 John G. Drosdick
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Bruce G. Fischer
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Thomas W. Hofmann
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Joseph P. Krott
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Michael S. Kuritzkes
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Joel H. Maness
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Michael J. McGoldrick
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Ann C. Mulé
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Paul A. Mulholland
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Rolf D. Naku
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Robert W. Owens
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Ross S. Tippin, Jr.
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Charles K. Valutas
	  	March 4, 2004

  

			
	 Director

	  	Date of Agreement


	 Robert J. Darnall
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Ursula F. Fairbairn
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Thomas P. Gerrity
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Rosemarie B. Greco
	  	March 4, 2004
	 James G. Kaiser
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Robert D. Kennedy
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Richard H. Lenny
	  	March 4, 2004
	 Norman S. Matthews
	  	March 4, 2004
	 R. Anderson Pew
	  	March 4, 2004
	 G. Jackson Ratcliffe
	  	March 4, 2004
	 John W. Rowe
	  	March 4, 2004
	 John K. Wulff
	  	March 8, 2004
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hypertherm, Inc.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-373-JD

American Torch Tip Company

O R D E R

American Torch Tip Company (“ATTC”) moves for leave to file

a reply to Hypertherm, Inc.’s objection to ATTC’s motion to

reconsider the court’s order issued on July 24, 2008. In the

July 24 order, the court granted partial summary judgment in

Hypertherm’s favor on ATTC’s invalidity defenses as to two

patents and on infringement by prior versions of accused

products. ATTC moved for reconsideration of summary judgment on

infringement by prior versions and asks the court to preserve

certain invalidity defenses. Hypertherm filed an objection to

ATTC’s motion for reconsideration, arguing that ATTC failed to

satisfy the standard for reconsideration, pointing out the

corrected list of prior versions of accused parts, and contending

that no clarification to preserve defenses was necessary.

In support of its motion for leave to file a reply, ATTC

charges that Hypertherm has raised new factual assertions and

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 335 Filed 10/16/08 Page 1 of 3
2

legal arguments in its objection to ATTC’s motion for

reconsideration. ATTC does not identify, however, what new facts

and theories are presented. Hypertherm objects to ATTC’s motion

for leave to file a reply on the ground that additional briefing

on the issues is not necessary and that the proposed reply

includes factual and legal errors. Hypertherm asserts that if

leave were granted to file the reply, it would seek leave to file

a surreply.

ATTC is granted leave to file the reply, although granting

leave does not suggest that the court will consider any argument

or evidence presented in the reply or in the motion for

reconsideration that is beyond the scope of a motion for

reconsideration. Hypertherm is granted leave to file a surreply. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion for leave

to file a reply (document no. 309) is granted. The plaintiff is

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 335 Filed 10/16/08 Page 2 of 3
3

 granted leave to file a surreply within ten days of the date of

this order.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

October 16, 2008

cc: Jill C. Anderson, Esquire

Jacob K. Baron, Esquire

Steven M. Bauer, Esquire

Lucas M. Blower, Esquire

Seth M. Cannon, Esquire

Joseph A. Capraro, Jr., Esquire

Jeffery M. Cross, Esquire

Joseph T. Dattilo, Esquire

Ami D. Gandhi, Esquire

Maia H. Harris, Esquire

Marc H. Kallish, Esquire

Rhett R. Krulla, Esquire

Jonathan A. Lax, Esquire

Richard C. Nelson, Esquire

W. Scott O'Connell, Esquire

Jeremy P. Oczek, Esquire

Richard D. Rochford, Jr., Esquire

David W. Ruoff, Esquire

John M. Skeriotis, Esquire

Benjamin M. Stern, Esquire

Wayne Tang, Esquire

Case 1:05-cv-00373-JD Document 335 Filed 10/16/08 Page 3 of 3
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/ RULE

15d-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

I, Stephen B. Lazarus, certify that:

|   | 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of OneSpaWorld Holdings Limited; and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

April 29, 2020

 

|                                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Stephen B. Lazarus                              |
| Stephen B. Lazarus                                  |
| Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |