alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CAUSE NUMBER 03—15—00318—CR 

JAMAAL BRADLEY X IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 X 

V. X THIRD COURT OF APPEALS 

 X 

STATE OF TEXAS X STATE OF TEXAS 

APPELLANT’S THIRD MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING 

OF APPELLANT’S BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, by and through his appointed 

attorney of record, Paul M. Evans, in the above entitled and numbered 

cause, and moves this Court, to grant the Appellant’s Third Motion to 

Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief, and, in support thereof, would 

show the Court as follows: 

 I.

Appellant’s Brief was due before this Court on November 23, 2015. 

A previous Motion to Extend Time was filed on September 17, 2015, and 

was granted the same date. A second Motion was filed on November 2, 

2015, and was granted the following date. 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00318-CR

8205407

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

12/11/2015 3:26:59 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/11/2015 3:26:59 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
 II. 

The undersigned counsel requires more time to complete the research 

of the issues presented by the instant appeal and drafting of the Appellant’s 

Brief. Counsel would hereby respectfully request the deadline be extended 

to January 8, 2016.

Counsel had anticipated that he would be able to complete the 

Appellant’s Brief in the period falling between November 2 and November 

23—the date of the previous deadline and the new deadline requested in 

Counsel’s previous Motion to Extend, respectively—but personal health 

issues hampered his ability to perform the labor needed to complete the task 

at that time, and the resumption of everyday court dockets after the 

Thanksgiving holiday has severely curtailed his ability to devote attention to 

the instant matter. 

The issues involved in the instant appeal are not complex, and 

Counsel anticipates he can easily tender a completed Appellant’s Bried by 

no later than January 8, 2016. 

 III. 

This Motion is not made for purposes of delay, but so that justice 

might be served. 
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Defendant respectfully 

prays that this Court, upon good cause shown, grant the Appellant’s Third

Motion to Extend Time for Filing Appellant’s Brief.

 Respectfully submitted,

 Law Office of Paul M. Evans

 811 Nueces Street

 Austin, Texas 78701

 (512) 569-1418

 (512) 692-8002 FAX

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS

 SBN 24038885

 Attorney for Defendant

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

was delivered by facsimile unto the office of the prosecuting attorney for the 

State of Texas—the Travis County District Attorney, mailing address P.O. 

Box 1748, Austin, TX, 78767, physical address 509 W. 11

th Street, Austin, 

TX, 78701—on this the 11th day of December, 2015. 

 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS
 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

 I hereby certify that the present document contains 456 words, all 

contents included. 

 _/s/ Paul M. Evans________ 

 PAUL M. EVANS
<PAGE>
 
                NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

        Exhibit No. (11) - Statement - computation of per share earnings

                Statement of Computations of Earnings per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            For the Three Months                  For the Nine Months
                                             Ended September 30                   Ended September 30
                                      ---------------------------------         ------------------------
                                         1996                  1995                 1996         1995
                                      -----------          -----------          -----------  -----------
<S>                                   <C>                  <C>                  <C>          <C>
Net Earnings                          $ 2,879,000          $ 2,603,000          $ 8,555,000  $ 8,113,000
                                      ===========          ===========          ===========  ===========
 
Average common shares outstanding      15,040,000           15,040,000*          15,040,000   15,040,000*
                                      ===========          ===========          ===========  ===========
 
Earnings per share of common stock    $       .19          $       .17*         $       .57  $       .54*
                                      ===========          ===========          ===========  ===========
 
</TABLE>
        *Adjusted for a two-for-one stock split effective May 22, 1996.
NUMBER 13-18-00417-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, YVONNE TREVINO, 

AND JIM KRIEGER

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez1

Relators PlainsCapital Bank, Yvonne Trevino, and Jim Krieger filed a petition for 

writ of mandamus in the above cause seeking to compel the trial court to vacate a July 

27, 2018 discovery order and to dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively, 

abate the case pending disposition of a related case pending in the Hidalgo County 

Probate Court, or alternatively, enter an amended order limiting discovery. The July 27, 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

2018 order at issue here allows specific, limited pre-arbitration discovery and provides 

that relators’ motion to compel arbitration and alternative plea in abatement will be heard 

within fifteen days of the date that relators produce the specified discovery. The Court 

requested and received a response to the petition from the real party in interest, Jeff 

Richter as attorney-in-fact for Aleah Sue Richter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 

302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Mandamus relief is proper to correct a 

clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus 

Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). Relators 

bear the burden of proving both requirements. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d at 

302; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and 

unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting 

evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine 

the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review 

against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. 

proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response, the reply, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators 

have not established their right to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we lift the stay 

previously imposed in this case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or 
3

modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). 

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ Rogelio Valdez

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed the

30th day of August, 2018.
Exhibit
32.2





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 24Holdings Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Kirk M. Warshaw, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 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, as amended;
  and





(2)
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
      Company.





Dated:
October 29, 2010





/s/ Kirk M. WarshawKirk
      M. WarshawChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this certification 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.
#### Fred COFFER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion.
Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 324-2 filed 08/19/13 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 1
#### Judson Realty, Inc., Appellant, v First Park Associates, L. P., Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent. Huberth & Peters, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about September 13, 1988, granting the motion of third-party defendant Huberth & Peters, Inc. to compel arbitration and denying plaintiff’s cross motion to stay arbitration, dismissed as moot, without costs.

Subsequent to the order denying its motion to stay the arbitration, plaintiff entered into an agreement consenting to arbitrate. It did not seek to stay the court’s order pending appeal or indicate in any way that its execution of the agreement was under protest. Thus, plaintiff has voluntarily committed itself to arbitrate its dispute regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Under these circumstances, the appeal from the order compelling arbitration has been rendered moot. *(See, Matter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne,*50 NY2d 707.) Concur—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6724

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEPHEN D. SATCHER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. 

Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:00-cr-00105-DKC-1; 8:18-cv-2946-

DKC)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen D. Satcher, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stephen D. Satcher seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as 

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard 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 motion states a debatable claim of the denial of 

a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Satcher has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Satcher’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and to remand, and we dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
Case 1:11-cv-02530-RM-KLM Document 7 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02530-RM-KLM Document 7 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 3
Case 1:11-cv-02530-RM-KLM Document 7 Filed 11/01/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. CR 11cr359 JAP

MEONAHAN SCOTT PRAIRIECHIEF,

Defendant.

ORDER

The Court has determined that the following deadlines should apply:

1.) November 10, 2011, filing of all pre-trial motions.

2.) November 21, 2011, filing of responses to motions.

3.) December 1, 2011, filing of replies to responses to motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________

 JAMES A. PARKER

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 26, 2011.

Case 1:11-cr-00359-JAP Document 23 Filed 10/26/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

R.W., the father and M.A., the mother,

Appellants,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES,

Appellee.

Nos. 4D17-483

and 4D17-613

[July 14, 2017]

Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Stacey Schulman, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2014-670 CJ-DP.

Albert W. Guffanti of Albert W. Guffanti, P.A., Miami, for appellant, 

R.W., the father.

Roger Ally of Roger Ally, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant, M.A., the 

mother.

Pamela J. Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carolyn Schwarz, 

Assistant Attorney General, Fort Lauderdale., for appellee.

Laura J. Lee, Appellate Counsel, Sanford, for Guardian Ad Litem 

Program.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 99.1        Officer's Certificate regarding Annual Statement of
                    Compliance of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.

                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.
                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

     The undersigned officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp., a
Delaware corporation (the "Company") hereby certifies on behalf of the Company
and on his own behalf for purposes of the WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2002-AR4, as follows:

     1. I am a duly appointed and qualified First Vice President of the Company.

     2. Capitalized terms used and not defined herein shall have the meanings
ascribed to such terms in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement related to the
above-referenced series of Certificates.

     3. I am duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate
on behalf of the Company.

     4. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and performance under this Agreement has been made under my
supervision.

     5. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed my name as of March 29, 2005.





                   WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.


                     By: /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                         -------------------------------------
                         Thomas G. Lehmann
                         First Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         104,243
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                       394
<INVENTORY>                                     30,049
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,559
<PP&E>                                          96,628
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,275
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,263
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           55,058
<BONDS>                                        161,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,844
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   343,263
<SALES>                                        248,602
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               248,602
<CGS>                                          174,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,057
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,033
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    61
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,894
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (346)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (778)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,506)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.14)
        

</TABLE>
#### CARTER v. LIVESAY WINDOW CO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Dismissed without opinion,
-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00427-WYD

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. CARLOS PERLA-ALBERTO, a/k/a Carlos Arestides Perla-Alverto,

Defendant.

ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon a review of the file. To ensure that all

pre-trial phases of the case are complete before the commencement of the jury trial, it is

ORDERED that all pretrial motions shall be filed by Wednesday, December 7,

2011, and responses to these motions shall be filed by Friday, December 16, 2011. It

is

FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing on all pending motions, if any, and final trial

preparation conference shall not be set at this time. The parties shall contact Chambers

should a hearing become necessary. It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that a 3-day jury trial is set for Tuesday, December 27,

2011, at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom A-1002.

Case 1:11-cr-00427-WYD Document 9 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
-2-

Dated: October 24, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Wiley Y. Daniel 

WILEY Y. DANIEL

CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00427-WYD Document 9 Filed 10/24/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                            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 Amscan Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Gerald C.
Rittenberg, Chief Executive Officer and Michael A. Correale, Chief Financial
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:

(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/ Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Gerald C. Rittenberg
                                        Chief Executive Officer


                                        /s/ Michael A. Correale
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Michael A. Correale
                                        Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 15, 2007
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Honorable Marcia S. Krieger

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02572-MSK-BNB

MICHAEL E. SHANER; and

JANELL M. SHANER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARIA T. ANDERSON, M.D.,

Defendant.

ORDER REGARDING CUSTODY OF EXHIBITS AND DEPOSITIONS USED IN

EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS AND TRIALS

IT IS ORDERED that, as to any exhibits and depositions used during evidentiary

hearings or trials, counsel for the parties shall retrieve the originals of such exhibits and

depositions from the Court following the evidentiary hearing or trial, and shall retain same for 60

days beyond the later of the time to appeal or conclusion of any appellate proceedings. The

Court will retain its copy of the exhibits for the same time period after which the documents will

be destroyed.

DATED this 6th day of October, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02572-MSK-BNB Document 3 Filed 10/06/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 11–cr–000335-001-MSK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. WAUNITA WEINGART,

Defendant.

MOTION REQUESTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR DECEMBER 18, 2012, 

ORAL RULING

Comes now the Defendant, Waunita Weingart, by and through her attorney, 

Martin Stuart, and moves this Court for the entry of an Order allowing Jolie Masterson to 

substitute for Martin Stuart during a December 18, 2012, oral ruling by the Court.

AS GROUNDS:

1. The Court will issue an oral ruling on pending F.R.E.702 issues on 

December 18, 2012, at 2 PM (doc. 179). The Court previously orally stated at the 

conclusion of a November 28, 2012, hearing that neither the attorneys nor the 

defendants need be present for the ruling, although Ms. Weingart does intend on being 

present.

2. Defense counsel is unavailable to appear with Ms. Weingart on December

18, 2012, due to a previously scheduled medical appointment and therefore requests 

attorney Jolie Masterson be allowed to substitute for him at the hearing.

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 187 filed 12/13/12 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 3
3. Ms. Weingart has been consulted and does not object to the requested 

substitution of counsel.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests the relief requested, and for such 

other and further relief as to the Court seems just and proper in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 13, 2012 By: s/Martin Stuart_____ 

MARTIN STUART, counsel for Ms. 

Weingart

 PortmanStuart, LLC

955 Bannock Street, suite 200

 Denver, CO 80204

 Phone 303-355-6789

 Fax 303-623-0714

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 187 filed 12/13/12 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 13th day of December 2012, I electronically filed the 

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send 

notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses: 

Linda Kaufman

Assistant United States Attorney

1225 17th St., Ste. 700

Denver, CO 80202

Linda.kaufman@usdoj.gov

William Taylor

Attorney or John Gallegos

303 16th Street, #200

Denver, CO 80202

wltaylorpc@gmail.com

Paula Ray

Attorney for Alois Craig Weingart

1801 Broadway, suite 1100

Denver, CO 80202

paulamray@earthlink.net

/s/ Martin Stuart________

Martin Stuart

Case No. 1:11-cr-00355-MSK Document 187 filed 12/13/12 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 3