alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 4

- 00 467

- C V



### ____________________

D O LORES FAY BOVIS
, Appellant

V.

VALERIE MANIS AND SUSAN ZINNECKER POOLE , Appellee s

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 14

- 28329

________________________________________________________ _____________

ORDER

The trial court signed a judgment for possession of real property on October

13, 2014. The judgment requires th at appellant, Dolores Fay Bovis

, file a bond in

the amount of $ 2100.00 to supersede the judgment. On November 19, 2014, Bovis

filed a motion seeking appellate review of the amount of security required to

supersede the judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4

. In set ting the supersedeas bond

in a forcible detainer suit, the county court must take into consideration the value

of rents l ikely to accrue during appeal, damages that may occur as the result of the2 stay during appeal, and other damages or amounts as the court may deem

appropriate. Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 24.007(a) (West 201 4 ). Bovis has not shown

that the trial court failed to properly apply section 24.007(a). See id. Appellant’s

motion for reduction of supersedeas bond is denied.

On November 20, 2014, Bovis filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Judgment

with a copy of the Judgment of Eviction attached. “A judgment of a county court

in an eviction suit may not under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal

unless, within 10 days of the signing of the judgment, the appellant files a

supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court. Id. Bovis has not

d emonstrated her timely compliance with the statute. Appellant’s motion for

emergency stay is denied.

ORDER ENTERED November 20 , 2014

.

PER CURIAM

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-50759 Conference Calendar

__________________ FRANK SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES; BRUCE BENKE, District Officer; FRANK DEMORE, Hearings Officer, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-95-CV-741
- - - - - - - - - - March 1, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Frank Sanchez appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and discern no reversible error. The appeal is frivolous and therefore is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We caution Sanchez that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, SanchezNo. 95-50759 -2- is further cautioned to review all pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Exhibit 32.1





March 14 , 201 9


Via EDGAR


Securities and Exchange Commission


100 F Street, N.E.


Washington, D.C. 20549





Re: Certification pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)





Ladies and Gentlemen:





In connection with the Annual Report of SandRidge Permian Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 201 8 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the Trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that to its knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Trust.





The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.








By:/s/ SARAH NEWELLSarah NewellVice PresidentThe Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee of SandRidge Permian Trust
EXHIBIT 10.1

 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO 

CÜR MEDIA, INC. 

2014 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

Pursuant to Sections 4(a) and 12(b)(i) of the CÜR Media, Inc. 2014 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Board of Directors hereby amends the Plan as set forth below. Unless otherwise defined herein, capitalized terms used in this second amendment (the “Second Amendment”) shall have the meaning given to them in the Plan.

 

	
1.

	
Subsection 6(a) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read as follows:




  

“(a) Plan Reserve. An aggregate of Four Million Four Hundred Thousand (4,400,000) Shares are reserved for issuance under this Plan, all of which may be issued as any form of Award; provided, however, that Awards for a maximum of Four Hundred Thousand (400,000) Shares may be granted during the first twelve (12) months following the Effective Date of this Plan to Tom Brophy, the Company’s intended President and Chief Executive Officer.”

 

	
2.

	
All other terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.




  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment has been executed by order of the Board of Directors of CÜR Media, Inc. as of October 8, 2014.

  

	 	CÜR MEDIA, INC.	 
	 	 	 	 
		By:	/s/ Thomas Brophy 	 
	 	 	Thomas Brophy	 
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer
[No. 44922-2-I.

Division One.

April 24, 2000.]

#### Windermere Real Estate/Whatcom, Inc., et al., *Respondents,*v. Albert Jansen, et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for What-com County, No. 97-2-01352-2, Michael F. Moynihan, J., entered June 18, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Becker, A.C.J., and Baker, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          14,952
<SECURITIES>                                   455,387
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,384,609
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (24,248)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,830,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,249
<BONDS>                                      4,175,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           599
<OTHER-SE>                                     628,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,830,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                39,193<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   81,769
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,300
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (48,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (48,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (48,876)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.83)
<FN>
<F1>
INCLUDES 64,287 OF INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO MORTGAGE LOAN ACTIVITIES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
1996 BUDGET
Committee on the Budget: Committee began markup of a proposed 
concurrent resolution on the fiscal year 1996 budget for the Federal 
Government, but did not complete action thereon, and will meet again 
tomorrow.
RAMSPECK ACT
Committee on Governmental Affairs: Subcommittee on Post Office and 
Civil Service concluded hearings to review the implementation of the 
Ramspeck Act of 1940, which allows the Federal Government to retain the 
services of certain former congressional employees, and S. 177, to 
repeal the Ramspeck Act, after receiving testimony from Senator McCain; 
James B. King, Director, Office of Personnel Management; Nancy R. 
Kingsbury, Director, Federal Human Resource Management Issues, General 
Government Division, General Accounting Office; and Mark R. Levin, 
Landmark Legal Foundation, Kansas City, Missouri.
```
#### INDUSTRIAL NATIONAL BANK OF RHODE ISLAND v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ ARIAS, 

also known as Roberto Rodriguez,

also known as Roberto Rodriguez-Arias

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-127-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The court has considered this appeal on the basis of the briefs and the

record and AFFIRMS the conviction and sentence but REMANDS the judgment

solely to reform the identity of the statute under which the defendant was

convicted. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-20741 Document: 00511999683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2012
No. 11-20741

Following the precedent set forth in United States v. Mondragon-Santiago,

564 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2009), the offense here was a § 1326(b)(1) violation rather

than a § 1326(b)(2) violation. The original imposition of deferred adjudication

probation, albeit for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, did not qualify

as an offense with a term of imprisonment of one year or more. Therefore, the

defendant was guilty of a pre-deportation felony rather than a pre-deportation

aggravated felony. While the current case has the additional concern of the

defendant’s probation being revoked after he was deported and illegally reentered, the government’s relation-back argument is without merit. The later

probation revocation is irrelevant to the application of § 1326. The conviction

giving rise to a § 1326 count must be evaluated at the time of deportation, not

following removal. This error was plain, and its correction amounts to little

more than a clerical alteration of the conviction records.

The sentence imposed by the district court, however, took mitigating

factors into account to justify a downward departure from the sentencing

guidelines and was reasonable with respectto the violation actually committed—

§ 1326(b)(1). The sentence is therefore left undisturbed.

The conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED, but the case is

REMANDED for reformation of the conviction statute in the district court

records.

2

Case: 11-20741 Document: 00511999683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2012
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT BRYANT AND JAMES BRYANT.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I request that the Senate go into 
executive session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
#### R. F. Bull v. H. E. Forest.

(No. 1601, Op. Book No. 3, p. 660.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 17 9. *Attachment; writ of; clerk may issue.*A clerk of the county court has the authority, in a proper case, to issue the writ of attachment without an order of the judge.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

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 Electronic Tele-Communications,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Jeffrey M. Nigl, 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 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.

/s/ Jeffrey M. Nigl
----------------------------------
Jeffrey M. Nigl
Chief Financial Officer
August 10, 2004

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 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00154-CR

Marilynn Meade MEDINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR11281

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK 

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 12th day of June, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
**Exhibit 13.2**

 

**906 Certification**

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

In connection with the annual report of Wowo Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Martin Cheung, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

 

This Certificate has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
| Date:  | May 15, 2015       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   |                    |   |
| By:    | /s/ Frank Zhigang Zhao  |   |
| Name:  | Frank Zhigang Zhao      |   |
| Title: | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                  4,253
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        4,226
<PP&E>                                      0
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      27
<BONDS>                                   235
<COMMON>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                              8,582
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,854
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          283
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          6
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (182)
<INCOME-TAX>                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (182)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                             (182)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (6.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (6.25)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 179 (Thursday, September 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23169]



[[Page 56608]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Agency Meeting

    Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: [To be 
published]
    Status: Open Meeting.
    Place: 100 F. Street, NE., Washington, DC.
    Date and Time of Previously Announced Meeting: September 15, 2010.
    Change In the Meeting: Room Change.
    The Joint Public Roundtable on Swap Execution Facilities and 
Security-Based Swap Execution scheduled for Wednesday, September 15, 
2010 at 9 a.m. will be held in the Multi-Purpose Room (Room L-006).
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in 
the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to 
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, 
please contact:
    The Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23169 Filed 9-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                             SPECIAL ORDERS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Norwood). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 1995, and under a previous order of the House, the 
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

                          ____________________
```
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

In the Interest of A.D.C., a child. )

___________________________________)

)

R.W., )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-1636

)

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND )

FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM )

PROGRAM, )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed September 26, 2018. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; James V. Pierce, Judge.

Frank D. L. Winstead of Winstead Law 

Offices, Land O' Lakes, for Appellant.

Bernie McCabe, State Attorney,

Tallahassee, and Leslie M. Layne, 

Assistant State Attorney, Clearwater, 

for Appellee, Department of Children 

and Families.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of 

Appeals, Tallahassee, and Rocco J. 

Carbone, III, St. Augustine, for Appellee, 

Guardian Ad Litem Program.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

LaROSE, C.J., and BADALAMENTI, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
#### Mitchell, Vance & Co. v. Dallas City Gas Light Co.

(No. 739, Op. Book No. 3, p. 485.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

February 9, 1881.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 133. *Finding of facts by a judge.*The finding of the facts in a case by the court is as conclusive, and will be regarded in the same way, as the verdict of a juiy; and it is well settled that an appellate court will not set aside a verdict unless it clearly appears to be wrong, where the evidence is conflicting. [Stroud v. Springfield, 28 Tex. 649; Gammage v. Traiwick, 19 Tex. 64; Oliver v. Chapman, 15 Tex. 401; Tuttle v. Turner, 28 Tex. 775; Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 340; Edrington v. Kiger, 4 Tex. 89; Tarkinton v. Broussard, 51 Tex. 550.]

Affirmed.
#### MURIEL S. SMITH v. ROSE PENTA.

March 14, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: Tour Lengths, Female Body Armor, & Directed Energy WeaponsPublished Feb. 19, 2021
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Angelo Rosario
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Today’s look Around the Air Force highlights a change in the length of some overseas assignments, the introduction of new female body armor, and the final testing phase of a new anti-drone weapon. (Produced by Staff Sgt. Angelo Rosario)





For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- A change in the length of some overseas assignments****- The introduction of new female body armor****- Final testing phase of a new anti-drone weapon**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



LR 



counter-Unmanned Aerial System 



c-UAS 



HELWS2 



H2 



Directed Energy Combined Test Force 



DE CTF 



laser 



weapon 



testing 



energy experiment 



training 



evaluation 



inclusion 



female 



body armor 



Defender 



AFWN 



tour lengths 



overseas duty locations 



PACAF 



USAFE 



One Air Force 



time on station 



readiness 



force management 



Personnel Management 



Airmen 



guardians 



Pacific Air Forces 



U.S. Air Forces in Europe