alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

					NO. 2-04-324-CR

CHARLES THOMAS ALLEN                					APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	----------

	FROM THE 16TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s “Motion For Voluntary Dismissal.”  The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).  No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.; Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 									 								

										PER CURIAM

PANEL D:	WALKER, J., CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 28, 2004.
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-90465) and in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.s 33-85908, 33-61103, 333-18363, 333-42723, 333-90471 and 333-76298) of Synbiotics Corporation of our report dated March 27, 2002
relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.





| | PR | ICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
| | -- | ------------------------




San Diego, California


March 27, 2002




1
## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

ERRATUM

April 29, 2008

Appeal No 2007-5011,-5099, Carlsen-Shea v US

Precedential Opinion

Decided: April 9, 2008

Line 12 of footnote 1 on page 10 should read as follows:

apply to federal employees w ho are not covered by the Fa ir Labor Standards Act, the

pertinent OPM regulations regarding preliminary
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00325-CR

ROBERT EVERETT WINSETT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1488017D)

May 23, 2019

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no reversible error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment 

of the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS

RESON LEE WOODS and

SHAUN K. WOODS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF DURANGO, a chartered National Bank,

Defendant.

 MINUTE ORDER 

ORDER ENTERED BY CHIEF JUDGE WILEY Y. DANIEL

Defendants’ Motion to Strike or for Leave to File Sur-Reply, filed March 30, 2012

[ECF No. 52] is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants request to file a Sur-Reply is

GRANTED, and the Motion is DENIED in all other respects. Defendants may file the

Sur-Reply attached to the Motion as Exhibit A.

Dated: April 23, 2012.

Case 1:11-cv-02676-WYD-CBS Document 54 Filed 04/23/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
#### John J. GETTLESON, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 7387.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 9, 1937.

David I. Hubar, Alfred A. May, Arthur H. Ratner, and Wisok, -Maguire & Wisok, all of Detroit, Mich., for appellant.

John C. Lehr, of Detroit, Mich., for the United States.

Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SI-MONS, Circuit Judges, and RAYMOND, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the stipulation filed herein, dated the 8th day of December, 1937, and it appearing that the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the first count of the indictment herein fails to state a crime against the United States of America, it is ordered that the judgment of conviction heretofore entered against the appellant, John J. Gettleson, by the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division be, and the same hereby is, reversed, and it is further ordered that the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division be, and hereby is, directed to make and enter its order dismissing the first count of the indictment in the within cause.
#### TELEDYNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Odif PODELL et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Eon Corporation and Kerns Manufacturing Corp., Defendants.

Nos. 504, 505, Dockets 75-7518, 75-7679.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Nov. 18, 1976.

Decided Dec. 6, 1976.

C. MacNeil Mitchell, New York City (Breed, Abbott & Morgan, New York City, Stephen R. Lang, George F. Vary, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Robert R. MacDonnell, New York City (Trubin Sillcoeks Edelman & Knapp, New York City), for defendants-appellants.

Before WATERMAN, FRIENDLY and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

On this appeal from a judgment against the defendants-appellants for money damages, we affirm on the opinion of Hon. Whitman Knapp, United States District Court Judge, Southern District of New York, reported at 401 F.Supp. 729 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).* The appellants also appeal from Judge Knapp’s order denying a new trial on the alleged ground of newly discovered evidence. The order is affirmed as we find that appeal to be totally without merit and frivolous. Therefore, pursuant to 28 U-.S.C. § 1912 and Fed.R.App.P. 38, we assess the appellants double costs and, in addition, $1,500 in attorneys’ fees.

*

 See also Judge Bauman’s opinion on a motion for summary judgment in this case, 373 F.Supp. 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1974).
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 Annual Report of World Health Alternatives, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Marc D. Roup, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



(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.



|    |  |                                      
|--- |  | -------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Marc D. Roup                     
|    |  | Marc D. Roup, Chief Executive Officer
|    |  |                                      



Dated: April 19, 2004
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 9, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00125

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. AND M.B

. , Children

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019PA01853 Honorab le Rosie Alvarado , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal, t he clerk’s record was due on March 7 , 2022

. The next day

, the Bexar County District Clerk filed a notification of late record request ing additional time to

prepar e the clerk’s record.

The request is GRANTED. The clerk’s record is du e on March 15 , 2022

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 5 .3(c) (limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day of March, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
TAYLOR CAPITAL GROUP, INC.



Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Taylor Capital Group, Inc. (the Company) hereby certify that:



(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2003 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|Dated: August 7, 2003 |  | /s/ JEFFREY W. TAYLOR                         
|--------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|                      |  | Jeffrey W. Taylor Chief Executive Officer     
|                      | 
|Dated: August 7, 2003 |  | /s/ J. CHRISTOPHER ALSTRIN                    
|                      |  | J. Christopher Alstrin Chief Financial Officer



This certification accompanies this
Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or another 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 Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and will be retained by
Taylor Capital Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff upon request.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40802

LEWIS

- JAY PORTER , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v. STATE OF TEXAS, 101 West Main Street, Suite 250, Nacogdoches, Texas 75861, doing business as Carrie Gilcrease , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:17

- CV

- 75

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Lewis

- Jay Porter, Texas prisoner # 01865394, was convicted in Texas state court for aggravated sexual assault of a child. He has filed what is best construed as a motion for a certificate of appealab ility (COA). Porter’s arguments appear to be based on his adherence to the so

- called “sovereign citizen” ideology. “The sovereign citizen movement is a loose grouping of litigants, commentators, and tax protesters who often take the position that

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 3, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40802 Document: 00514539145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/03/2018No. 17

- 40802

2 they ar e not subject to state or federal statutes and proceedings.” United States v. Weast , 811 F.3d 743, 746 n.5 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 137 S. Ct. 126 (2016). This court may issue a COA only if Porter has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a cons titutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To satisfy this requirement, Porter must demonstrate that reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). T he district court did not rule on whether a COA should issue

. Because the district court did not do so , we may assume wi thout deciding that we lack jurisdiction. See Cardenas v. Thaler , 651 F.3d 442, 443

- 44 (5th Cir. 2011) ; Rule 11(a), R ULES G OVERNING § 2254 C ASES

. However, we decline to remand in order for the district court to make the COA determi nation in the first instance because remand would be futile

. See United States v. Alvarez , 21 0 F.3d 309, 310 (5th Cir. 2000). Even if the district court had made the determination in the first instance , we would still deny a COA because Porter has not ma de the required showing. S ee Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and Porter’s constructive motion for COA is DENIED AS MOOT. Case: 17-40802 Document: 00514539145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/03/2018
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 6
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 6
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 6
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 6
Case 1:11-po-00136-DW Document 15 Filed 12/28/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02545-KLM

SAMMY KING,

Plaintiff,

v.

GORDON TRUCKING, INC., and

SARAH GRAHAM,

Defendants.

_____________________________________________________________________

MINUTE ORDER

______________________________________________________________________

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Reopen Discovery [Docket

No. 42; Filed October 1, 2013] (the “Motion”). As an initial matter, the Motion does not

comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, which provides as follows: 

The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before

filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to

confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.

The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the

motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.

The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff

contends that discovery should be reopened, in part, because “Plaintiffs [sic] wrongly

operated under the belief that liability would be admitted in this case, and so no discovery

was necessary on the issue.” Motion [#423] at 2. Plaintiff’s erroneous belief does not

amount to the diligence required by a party in pursuing discovery. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#42] is DENIED without pejudice. 

Dated: October 7, 2013

Case 1:11-cv-02545-KLM Document 43 Filed 10/07/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Docket No. 61755 Appellant filed his petition on June 8, 2012, more than one year after entry of the judgment of conviction on May 4, 2011. 2 Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed and procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause—cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1).

To overcome the procedural bar, appellant claimed that he does not fully understand English, does not fully understand the law, and relied on a fellow inmate to prepare this petition. The underlying claims in this petition are similar to claims raised in a motion for modification of sentence filed in the district court on October 5, 2011, and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that an impediment external to the defense prevented him from raising the claims in a timely petition. Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). In addition, that appellant relied on a fellow inmate for legal work and that English is not his first language did not demonstrate good cause. See generally Phelps v. Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons, 104 Nev. 656, 660, 764 P.2d 1303, 1306 (1988) (holding that petitioner's claim of organic brain damage, borderline mental retardation and reliance on assistance of inmate law clerk unschooled in the law did not constitute good cause for the filing of a successive post-conviction petition). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition as procedurally barred.

2 No direct appeal was taken.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2Docket No. 62000 Appellant filed a second notice of appeal from the same order that was the subject of Docket No. 61755. The clerk of this court inadvertently docketed an appeal in Docket No. 62000 as a separate matter when appellant filed the second, duplicative notice of appeal. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to administratively close the appeal in Docket No. 62000.

For the foregoing reasons, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED in Docket No. 61755 and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE THE APPEAL in Docket No. 62000.

— 

# D e CtLai Douglas

I /Lb' , J Saitta

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge Fransisco Alfredo Ramos Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
#### STATE of Florida et al., Appellants, v. FLORIDA STATE IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, an Agency of the State of Florida, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division B.

Feb. 4, 1955.

William D. Hopkins, Tallahassee, for appellant.

J. Turner Butler, Jacksonville, and Ford L. Thompson, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of State v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla., 71 So.2d 146, and State of Florida, (H. C. Williamson) v. Florida State Improvement Commission, Fla., 75 So.2d 1, 4.

Affirmed.

MATHEWS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOBSON and DREW, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                               EXHIBIT 99.2


                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 North Pittsburgh Systems, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A. P.
Kimble, Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Accounting 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 Sections 13(a)
              or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: August 13, 2002          /s/ A. P. Kimble
                               ------------------------------------------
                               A. P. Kimble
                               Vice President, Treasurer and Chief
                               Accounting Officer
Management's Assertion on Compliance

with the Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth

in the *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*
Report of Management

 

We, as members of management of IndyMac Bank, F.S.B, (the "Bank"), are responsible for complying with the minimum servicing standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers ("USAP").**We**are also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with these standards. We have performed an evaluation of the Bank's compliance with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP as of December 31, 2002 and forthe year then ended. Based on this evaluation, we assert that during the year ended December 31, 2002, the Bank complied, in all material respects, with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP, except as described in the following two paragraphs.
	Minimum servicing standards require escrow accounts be analyzed at least annually. As of December 31, 2002, the Bank was in compliance with the minimum servicing standard that requires escrow accounts be analyzed at least annually. However, during the year ended December 31, 2002, the Bank identified approximately 400 escrow accounts which had not been analyzed for more than a year. Subsequent to the identification of this exception, the Bank performed a review of all escrow accounts and completed the required analysis.
	Minimum servicing standards require interest on escrow accounts be paid, or credited, to mortgagors in accordance with applicable state laws. As of December 31, 2002, the Bank was in compliance with the minimum servicing standard that requires interest on escrow accounts be paid, or credited, to mortgagors in accordance with applicable state laws. However, during the year ended December 31, 2002, the Bank identified certain escrow accounts for which the timing of interest payments by the Bank differed from the respective state requirements. Subsequent to the identification of this exception, the Bank made modifications to the servicing system to ensure interest on escrow accounts was paid, or credited, in accordance with applicable state laws. 

As of December 31, 2002 and for the year then ended, the Bank had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $35,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $20,000,000.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165 North Lake Avenue

Pasadena, California 91101
Takephonc: 626.535.5555

www.indymacbank.corn

IndyMac Bank

Michael W. Perry 			Tony Ebers

Michael W. Perry 			Tony Ebers

Chairmen and				Executive Vice President

Chief Executive Officer		Home Loan Servicing

 

Scott Keys				Jeff Lankey

Scott Keys				Jeff Lankey

Executive Vice President and		Senior Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer			Chief Accounting Officer

 

 

January 24, 2003*
2095195.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02549-RPM-KLM 

Clark Wilson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Colorado Springs Philharmonic Orchestra, 

Defendant. 

ORDER GRANTING THE DEPOSITION OF LAWRENCE SMITH TO BE 

TAKEN PRIOR TO THE F.R.C.P. 26(f) CONFERENCE 

This matter comes before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to Take the 

Deposition of Lawrence Smith Prior to the F.R.C.P. 26(f) Conference. After careful review of 

the Stipulation and file, the Court has concluded that the Stipulation should be approved and that 

Lawrence Smith’s deposition may be taken prior to the F.R.C.P. 26(f) conference. 

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED as follows: 

1. That the Stipulated Motion to Take the Deposition of Lawrence Smith Prior to the 

F.R.C.P. 26(f) Conference is APPROVED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of November, 2011. 

 

s/Richard P. Matsch

Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge 

Case 1:11-cv-02549-RPM Document 11 Filed 11/07/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
```

                                EXHIBIT 10.11(I)

                                                  September 20, 2006

Mr. Richard Monsorno
8954 Regina Road
Jacksonville, FL 32217

Dear Richard:

Your Employment Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2003, between you and ATC (the
"Agreement") expires on September 30, 2006. The Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors would like to extend the "Term" as defined in the Agreement
to end on September 30, 2007.

All other terms of your employment as provided in the Agreement shall continue.
As modified by this letter, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign the two copies of this
letter in the space provided and return them to me.

Please call me if you have any questions.

                                                  Very truly yours,

                                                  /S/ Kathleen M. Kelly
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Kathleen M. Kelly
                                                  Vice President, Administration

KMK

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

/S/ Richard Monsorno
-------------------------
Richard Monsorno
```