alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALLIE C. BESSETTE, )

DOC #523028, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1690

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 6, 2019.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for

Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, 

Judge.

Allie C. Bessette, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           8,835
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                       861
<INVENTORY>                                     22,261
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,096
<PP&E>                                         258,420
<DEPRECIATION>                                  68,633
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 256,979
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,980
<BONDS>                                              0<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,834
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   256,979
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               224,490
<CGS>                                          183,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  209,833
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F1>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,937
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,048
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,048
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,048
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR ACCOMPANYING
NOTES THERETO.
</FN>


</TABLE>
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 SinoFresh HealthCare, Inc. (the "Company")
        on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
        the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Scott
        M.
        Klein, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Section 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: April
              13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Scott
              M.
              KleinScott
              M. KleinChief
              Financial Officer
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 1097

In re: MICHAEL GORBEY , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:21

- cr - 00214

- 1 )

Submitted : March 3, 2022 Decided: March 9, 2022

Before KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

. Michael S. Gorbey, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Michael Gorbey petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking us to order the district court to take certain actions in his criminal case. “[M]andamus is a drastic remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy

- Brown, LLC , 907 F.3d 78 8, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court , 542 U.S. 367, 380

- 81 (2004)). The writ of mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment

. Will v. Uni ted States , 389 U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) ; cf. United States v. Sueiro , 946 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2020) (noting that in a criminal case, “this Court generally does not have appellate jurisdiction u ntil after the imposition of a sentence”)

. We have reviewed Gorbey’s petition and amended petitions, and we conclude that he fails to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition and amended petitions for a writ of mand amus. * 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.
PETITION DENIED

* To the extent Gorbey seeks recusal of prior judges, we deny his request as moot.
#### FERREE’S BAND INSTRUMENT TOOLS & SUPPLIES, INC., a Michigan Corporation, Appellant, v. Odie CLAXTON, Appellee.

No. 676.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

Oct. 7, 1971.

*335Charles F. Guenther, III, San Antonio, for appellant.

Robert Barnes, Hidalgo, for appellee.

OPINION

BISSETT, Justice.

Appellant has attempted to perfect his appeal to this Court from the overruling of the motion for new trial by the trial court.

The transcript shows that judgment was entered in a non jury case on May 3, 1971. The appellant filed his motion for new trial on May 19, sixteen days after judgment was entered. The trial court overruled the motion for new trial on July 6, 1971. The transcript and statement óf facts were presented to the Clerk of this Court for filing on September 2, 1971.

Rule 329b, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that a motion for new trial must be filed within ten days after judgment has been rendered. The appellant contends that the trial court accepted his motion for new trial. He argues that the court set it down for hearing and the opposing attorneys did not object to the hearing on the motion nor did the opposing attorneys object to the attempted appeal to this Court. He, therefore, argues that these matters have been waived and cannot be complained of in this Court.

The trial court cannot enlarge the time for the filing of a motion for new trial, nor may the parties to the appeal waive this requirement.

The transcript and statement of facts must be filed in the Court of Civil Appeals in compliance with Rule 386, T.R. C.P. The rules do not permit the waiver of the times specified by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Since the appellant’s motion for new trial was not timely filed the appeal dates cannot be figured from the overruling of the same. The transcript and statement of facts should have been filed in this Court on July 1, 1971. Rule 386, T.R.C.P.

Appeal dismissed.

SHARPE, J., not participating.
EXHIBIT
32.2





INVISA,
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 Annual Report of Invisa, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K
for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edmund C. King, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





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 result of operations of the Company.








/s/
Edmund C. King


__________________________________


Edmund C.
King


Chief
Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. PETER TEMEAN.

November 18, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2



              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 HealthAxis Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John M. Carradine, 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 (15U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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/ John M. Carradine

John M. Carradine
Chief Financial Officer
August 14, 2002
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23.3

             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED  PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
             ----------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the use in this Registration Statement on Form S-1
(Amendment No. 3) of our report dated February 24, 2000, except as to the first
paragraph of Note 1 which is as of _________, relating to the financial
statements of Empire Financial Holding Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such Registration Statement.

/s/  Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP

Tampa, Florida
September 27, 2000
## NUMBER 13
- 2 3
- 0 0 584
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ HYSTER
- YALE GROUP, INC. , Appellant ,

v. CHRISTOPHER ZIESKE , Appellee

.

_

___________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM THE 389 TH DISTRICT COURT OF HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

_

___________________________________________________________ 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Peña Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This cause is before the Court on a n agreed motion to vacate the trial court ’s final judgment, dismiss case, and release surety

. The trial court signed a final judgment on September 28, 2023 , and o n December 12, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal. On March 13, 2024, the cause was abated to finalize a settlement in the matter.2 The parties have now reached a settlement agreement wherein they agree to
vacate the trial court’s final judgment and dismiss this appeal. The parties have further agreed , as part of the settlement, to a complete release of the bond issued by Western Surety Company, dated December 14, 2023, in the amount of $12,470,739.00 and that each party shall bear their own costs. Upon consideration of the agreed motion, w e reinstate the cause, grant the agreed
motion , vacate the trial court’s final judgment dated September 28 , 2023 , without reference to the merits, release the surety on the supersedeas bond posted in the case,
and dismiss the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)( 1 ) and 43.2( e )

. In accordance with
the agreement of the parties , costs are taxed against the party incurring same. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). Furthermore , the pending amended second joint motion to extend abatement of appeal is hereby denied as moot. Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained.
NORA L. LONGORIA Justice D elivered and filed on the 30th day of May, 2024.
Exhibit 13.1  CERTIFICATION
BY PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report on Form
20-F of Aurelia Energy N.V. (the Company) for the period ending
December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Hugo Heerema, certify that to the best of my
knowledge:  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.   Date: March 31, 2004/s/ HUGO HEEREMAHugo HeeremaManaging DirectorBluewater Holding B.V.
#### Israel *v.*Robinson et al.

(No. 25781

Decided January 29, 1936.)

*464*Mr. William H. Vodrey*and *Messrs. Jones <& Jones,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Arnold, Wright, Purpus <& Harlor,*for defendant in error Marguerite Arnold.

*Mr. Harry B. Scobie,*for defendants in error Mary Jones Baker et al.

It is ordered and adjudged that said petition in error be, and the same is hereby, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Petition in error dismissed.*

Weygandt, 0. J., Williams, Matthias, Day and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Jones, J., not participating.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   03-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                          694,543
<SECURITIES>                    000
<RECEIVABLES>                   62,293
<ALLOWANCES>                    000
<INVENTORY>                     000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                000
<PP&E>                          10,188,074
<DEPRECIATION>                  (3,079,042)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  8,238,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           000
<BONDS>                         000
<COMMON>                        000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           000
<PREFERRED>                     000
<OTHER-SE>                      8,133,224
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    8,238,769
<SALES>                         922,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>		1,104,639
<CGS>                           000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   547,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                427,060
<LOSS-PROVISION>                000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              000
<INCOME-PRETAX>			129,966
<INCOME-TAX>                    000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>		129,966
<DISCONTINUED>                  000
<EXTRAORDINARY>			000
<CHANGES>                       000
<NET-INCOME>                    129,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   3.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                   000
        		

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to
          Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Howard Abrams, Chief Executive Officer of Java Express, Inc. certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Java Express,
Inc.

      2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report.

      3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

      4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
registrant and have:

           a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being
prepared.

           b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date
of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

           c)  Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

      5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

           a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for
the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

           b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
control.

Date: July 13, 2006


/S/ Howard Abrams
___________________________________
Howard Abrams
Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 133

In the Interest of T.E.

Adam Miller, PsyD, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

T.E., Respondent and Appellant

No. 20220171

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, 

the Honorable Stephannie N. Stiel, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jason Van Horn, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, ND, for petitioner and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Andrew Marquart, Fargo, ND, for respondent and appellant; submitted on 

brief. 

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

JULY 7, 2022 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

Interest of T.E.

No. 20220171

Per Curiam.

[¶1] T.E. appeals from an order for hospitalization and an order for 

involuntary treatment with prescribed medication. T.E. argues the district 

court erred in finding he is mentally ill and a person requiring treatment. He 

also argues the court erred in granting the request for involuntary treatment 

with medication. We conclude the court’s findings are not clearly erroneous. 

See In re S.R.B., 2013 ND 109, ¶ 7, 832 N.W.2d 42 (the more probing clearly 

erroneous standard of review applies to factual findings made by the district 

court in appeals from an order for hospitalization and treatment). We 

summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
Order entered October 3, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01488-CR

No. 05-12-01489-CR

JUAN RAMON HERNANDEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-19054-H, F12-19055-H

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On August 21, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeals; (2) counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is his 

workload; and (3) counsel asked for forty-five days from the September 23, 2013 hearing to file 

appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by NOVEMBER 14, 2013. Because appellant’s 

brief is already three months overdue, no further extensions will be granted. If appellant’s brief 

is not filed by the date specified, we will order J. Daniel Oliphant removed as appellant’s 
appointed counsel and will order the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent appellant in 

these appeals.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Robert Burns, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 1, and to counsel for all 

parties.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1

                         CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                          18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
               SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of ResCon Technology
Corporation on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended November 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, Christian Nigohossian, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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; and

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



Date: May 6, 2003             By: /S/ Christian Nigohossian
                              ___________________________________
                              Christian Nigohossian
                              Chief Executive Officer and
                              Chief Financial Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 24, 2011

t1017 

# Order

October 24, 2011

143459

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 143459 COA: 296566 Wayne CC: 09-018998-FC DAVID LASTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 7, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.