alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# No. 05

- 15

- 01041

- CV
No. 05- 15

- 01042

- CV
No. 05- 15

- 01043

- CV
No. 05- 15

- 01044

- CV



# IN THE
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS

_______________________________________________________________________ 

## IN THE INTEREST OF M.W. AND Z.W., CHILDREN IN THE INTEREST OF J.Q.W., A CHILD IN THE INTEREST OF J.W., A CHILD IN THE INTEREST OF M.B., A CHILD

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 302 ND District Court Of Dallas County, Texas
Cause No. DF-10 -13224 -U
Cause No. DF -13 -18933 -U
Cause No. DF-14 -10757 -U
Cause No. DF-13 -18931 -U

_____________________________________________________________________________


# APPELL ANT’S MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL
TIME TO FILE APPELL ANT’S BRIEF and
MOTION TO ACCEPT FILED BRIEF

______________________________________________________________________________



### TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW APPELLANT, Crystal Bowens, who through her attorney of ACCEPTED
05-15-01044-CV
FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS
11/13/2015 5:34:25 PM

LISA MATZ
CLERK

### Appellant’s Motion for Additional Time

– page 3



### record, Stephanie L. Pond , request s additional time to file Appel l ant’s Brief and

request s the Court to accept Appellant ’ s brief that has been tendered to the Court.

I n support thereof would show:

1. Said Appellant’s brief was due to be filed by November 12, 2015

.

2. Since the second extension was granted, a ttorney for Appellant has

had to prepare for and appear at four CPS hearings, three trial settings,

two home visits to visit children, and one child support hearing

.

3. Appellant ’ s attorney did not have time to adequately prepare the brief

in this case.

4. Appellant ’ s brief was filed today, November 13, 2015, making it one

day late

.

5. Attorney for Appellant, Stephanie L. Pond, and Appellant request

the Court to grant an extension of time to file said brief and request the

Court to accept the brief that was tendered to the Court on N o vember 13,

2015

.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Appellant, Crystal Bowens , request s an extension of

time to file brief and requests the Court to accept the brief that has been tendered

### Appellant’s Motion for Additional Time

– page 3



### to the Court

.

Respectfully submitted,

Stephanie L. Pond

701 Commerce
Suite 200 Dallas, TX 7520 2
Tel: 214

- 752

- 0229
Facsimile: 214

- 752

- 5257

Email: stephaniepond@yahoo.com

/ s/ Stephanie L. Pond By : Stephanie L. Pond

SBN: 24079817

ATTORNEY FOR CRYSTAL BOWENS , APPELLANT



### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the above was served on Counsel for the Appell ees and the Guardian ad Litem in accordance with 9.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellant Procedure in the manner indicated below on November 13

, 2015

.

VIA EMAIL: Sandre.Moncriffe @dallascounty.org Assistant District Attorney

SANDRE MONCRIFFE

VIA EMAIL: gworrell@theworrelllawfirm.com Guardian ad Litem/Attorney ad Litem for the child ren GLYNE WORRELL

VIA EMAIL: Charles.Vaughn@dallascounty.org Attorney for Appellant

CHARLES VAUGHN

/s/ Stephanie L. Pond

____ By: Stephanie L. Pond
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4917-H4918]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 RECESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no further requests for morning 
business, pursuant to clause 12, rule I, the House will stand in recess 
until 12 noon. [[Page H4918]] 
  Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 37 minutes a.m.), the House stood in 
recess until 12 noon.

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Ample Strike: F-16s support aviation detachment rotationPublished Sept. 8, 2014
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Donner
                        
                        
                        31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **LASK AIR BASE, Poland (AFNS) --**
                F-16 Fighting Falcons from the 510th Fighter Squadron and approximately 150 support personnel from the 31st Fighter Wing at Aviano Air Base, Italy, arrived at the U.S. Air Force Aviation Detachment here, Sept. 4-5.Service members from U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the Polish air force will conduct joint training during the next several weeks, upholding long-standing commitments to allies and ongoing efforts to increase interoperability of NATO forces."Our main goal here is to increase our partnership with our Polish allies," said Maj. Freddie Helton, a 510th FS detachment commander. "Our continued training with the Polish air force allows us to enhance our tactics and increases interoperability if needed for a real-world event."The opportunity to train with NATO allies not only gives units the ability to employ fighter aircraft and pilots, but also provides training for aircrews and support personnel in a forward location.The aviation detachment in Poland, activated November 2012, makes it possible for U.S. Air Force aircraft and service members to participate in joint training exercises and host a regular rotation of aircraft."The continued training here helps the Airmen of the 510th Fighter Squadron stay forward, ready, now and strengthen our relationship with the men and women of the Polish air force," Helton said.As part of the rotation at the detachement, the 31st FW will support the NATO close air support exercise Ample Strike. The exercise, hosted by the Czech Republic, will allow the 510th FS and USAFE to work with, a planned, 11 nations. The purpose of the exercise is to test the ability for close air support and evaluate aircraft and personnel capabilities and increase military relationships and NATO interoperability."Poland is a key ally in Central Europe, and has been one of the United States' strongest supporters," Helton said. "Exercises like Ample Strike and the continued rotations here, allow us and our NATO allies to develop the tactics and relationships needed to enforce NATO priorities in Europe."Poland 



USAFE 



510th Fighter Squadron 



31st Fighter Wing 



Aviano Air Base 



Italy 



f-16 



lask air base
Solitario



Exhibit 4.1



COMMON STOCK NUMBER                                                                                                            COMMON STOCK SHARES



SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION

INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

                                                                                                                                                        83422R 10 6



                                              SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS                                                                                                                  CUSIP 83422R 10 6



THIS 

CERTIFIES

THAT



 

IS THE

RECORD

HOLDER OF



FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE U.S. $0.01 PER SHARE, OF

SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION

transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.

                 This Certificate is not valid unless countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent and Registrar.

                  WITNESS the facsimile signatures of the duly authorized officers of the Corporation.

                  DATED:



/s/ James R. Maronick                                                                                                                                                                /s/ Christopher E. Herald

SECRETARY                                                                                                                                                                             PRESIDENT



THE SHARES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE ARE TRANSFERABLE AT THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA IN TORONTO, CANADA.



COUNTERSIGNED AND REGISTERED:

COMPUTERSHARE TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA, Toronto, Canada

                                                      TRANSFER AGENT AND REGISTRAR



BY                                                                                                                

                                                                         AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         10
<COMMON>                                            90
<OTHER-SE>                                         100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 D0 07 7 . W I LLI E SUGGS et a l

. v . NAJ ARI AN HOLDI NGS, LLC.

Th i s d i s po s s es s o ry p ro ceed i n g co m m en ced i n m ag i s t rat e co u rt

. Fo ll o wi n g an

u n fav o rab l e ru l i n g , W i l li e an d J o n i t a Su g g s ap p eal ed t o s u p eri o r co u rt

. Th e s u p eri o r

co u rt en t ered an o rd er a n d w r i t o f p o s s es s i o n i n fav o r of Najari an H o l d in g s , b ut i t

res erv ed t h e rem ai n i n g i ss u es fo r t ri al

, d irect i n g t h e cal en d ar cl erk t o p l ace t h e cas e

o n a t ri al cal en d ar wi t h i n t wo m o n t h s

. A s i s s u es b et ween t h e Su g g s es an d Najari an

Ho l di n g s rem ai n p en d in g b efo re t h e t ri al co u rt

, n o fi n al ju d g m en t h as been en t ered

i n th i s cas e an d t h e i n t erl o cu to ry ap peal p ro ced u res s et fo rt h i n OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b )

were req ui red t o ap p eal t h e t r i a l co u rt ’ s o rd er. W i l l i e an d J o n i ta Su gg s ’ s fai l u re to

co m p l y wi t h t h e i n t erl o cu to ry

ap p eal p ro ced u res d ep ri v es t h is Co u rt o f j u ri s d i ct i o n

t o co n si d er t h i s ap p eal . Acco rd i n g l y , t h i s ap p eal i s o rd ered DISM ISSED.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e
, A t la n t a
,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 11/02/2015 November 02, 2015
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 134740 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 134740 COA: 278702 Kent CC: 05-011199-FH BRIAN DOUGLAS KNIFF, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2007 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1119 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.

November 29, 2007

Clerk
#### J. R. Carter v. G. W. Grigsby.

(No. 1023, Op. Book No. 1, p. 727.)

Appeal from Cooke County.

April 26, 1879.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 347. *One day’s notice of motion for new trial in justice’s court.*By sec. 17, p. 162, Acts 1876, one day’s notice of an application for new trial must be given the opposite party, his agent or attorney.

§ 348. *Appeal bond, condition of.*Where the condition of an appeal bond was that “the said G. W. Grigsby prosecute his appeal to effect, or will pay or satisfy the judgment against the that may be obligators on the bond,” *held,*that the condition is without sense or meaning. The conditions of such bonds are prescribed by the statute, which must be complied with. [Acts 15th Leg. p. 163, § 21; King v. Hopkins, 42 Tex. 48.]

Reversed and remanded.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# AF leaders says vets to thank for nation's success

              - Published  Nov. 13, 2013
              -                             By Staff Sgt. David Salanitri                                                     
              - Air Force Public Affairs Agency, Operating Location - Pentagon

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
The United States of America’s success is rooted in the sacrifice of millions of veterans who have served it, a senior Air Force leader said Nov. 11 at the Air Force Memorial in Arlington, Va. 

Lt. Gen. Stephen Hoog, Air Force assistant vice chief of staff and keynote speaker at a Veterans Day wreath laying ceremony, praised those who served in the armed forces to an audience of approximately 100 veterans, service members, family members and military supporters 

During his speech, Hoog stressed the importance veterans have played in America’s past and present. 

“Our nation’s success is founded in the sacrifice of the generations who served before us,” Hoog said. “We honor and thank the more than 22 million American veterans.”

Throughout his speech, Hoog made mention of several groups of veterans, who epitomize what it means to serve. He noted veterans serve in and out of uniform, to include teachers, civic leaders, fire fighters and police officers.  

Among these groups, Hoog highlighted the Doolittle Raiders – the group of bombardiers who mounted the first attack on Japan in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor.  Hoog also mentioned Pedro 83 -- a unit of rescue personnel who received the Mackay Trophy Nov. 12, for their rescue of an Army soldier during a six-hour mission in Afghanistan, which included an exchange of gunfire. The trophy is awarded to the most meritorious Air Force flight for the year. 

“Service doesn’t stop when you stop wearing the (military) uniform,” Hoog said.  “Many times our veterans provide even greater service when they leave the (military) uniform behind.” “Today’s generations of veterans is proudly serving just as the generations of those veterans who came before us,” he said.  

As Hoog concluded, he noted the sacrifice of both service members and their families. 

“Collectively, our nation owes our veterans, and more important, their families a debt that can never be paid,” Hoog said.  “On this Veterans Day, I salute all veterans – past and present.”

Air Force MemorialVeterans DayLt. Gen. Stephen Hoog
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

REJEANNE BERNIER; HANS S. CROTEAU, as individuals, and as members of a similarly situated class,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.
RICARDO LARA, in his capacity as California Insurance Commissioner; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 5 5160

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 00046

- MMA

BLM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Michael M. Anello, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 21, 2021 * *

Before: SILVERMAN
, WATFORD , and BENNETT , Circuit Judges.

Rejeanne Bernier and Hans S. Croteau appeal pro se from the district court ’s

order dismissing their action for failure to comply with a vexatious litigant pre

filing order

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUN 30 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 55160

abuse of discretion. In re Fillbach , 223 F.3d 1089, 1090

- 91 (9th Cir. 2000). We

affirm.

The d istrict court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action

because the complaint was within the scope of the pre

- filing order and plaintiffs

failed to comply with the pre

- filing requirements

. See Weissman v. Quail Lodge,

Inc. , 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (“District courts have the inherent power

to file restrictive pre

- filing orders against vexatious litigants with abusive and

lengthy histories of litigation.

. . . Such pre

- filing orders may enjoin the litigant

from filing f

urther actions or papers unless he or she first meets certain

requirements, such as obtaining leave of the court or filing declarations that

support the merits of the case. ”).

To the extent that plaintiffs seek to challenge the underlying pre

- filing order,

we do not consider their contentions because such a challenge is outside the scope

of this appeal.

Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice, and request set forth in the opening

brief for reassignment to a different district court judge on remand, are d enied.

AFFIRMED.
#### KANDALL FABRICATING & SUPPLY CORP. v. I.G.C. SPRINKLER CORP.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          EXTENSION OF REMARKS

  By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Ms. Jackson-Lee) and to 
include extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Poshard.
  Mr. Ford.
  Mr. Kleczka.
  Mr. Moran.
  Mr. Fazio of California.
  Mr. Ackerman.
  Mr. Torricelli.
  Mr. Oberstar.
  Mr. Vento.
  Mr. Coyne.
  Mr. Reed.
  Mr. Underwood in two instances.
  Mrs. Schroeder.
  Mr. Waxman.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Hayworth) and to 
include extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Talent.
  Mr. Gilman.
  Mr. Forbes.
  Mr. Baker of California.
  Mr. Lewis of Georgia in three instances.
  Mr. Solomon.
  Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. Packard.
  Mr. Houghton in two instances.
  Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut in two instances.
  Mrs. Roukema.
  Mr. Duncan.
  Mr. Emerson.
  Mr. Davis.
  Mr. Shuster.
  Mr. Largent.
  Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
  Mr. Rogers.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Smith of Michigan) and 
to include extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Clay.
  Mr. Bonilla.
  Mr. Bentsen.

                          ____________________
```
#### H. & T. C. R’y Co. v. J. A. Lovett.

(No. 1133, Op. Book No. 3, p. 489.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 137. *Contributory negligence; rule as to.*Suit for damages against a railroad company for injury caused by the colliding of the company’s train with plaintiff’s wagon at the crossing of a public road, whereby plaintiff’s wagon was broken, and personal injuries were inflicted upon him. It was alleged that the company’s employees in charge of the train neglected to ring the bell or blow the whistle when approaching the road, and also that the company had failed to put up a sign at said crossing as required by statute. [R. S. arts. 4231, 4232.] The defense was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Upon this issue, the trial court, in effect, instructed the jury that the company would be liable for the injury unless the plaintiff *hneiu*of the near approach *55of the train at the time he drove on the track. This charge was held to be erroneous. The jury should have been instructed that if the plaintiff could have known, by the use of- ordinary care, that the train was approaching, and failed to use such care, he was guilty of contributory negligence, and could not recover. The rule is well settled, that, notwithstanding the failure of the railroad company to comply with the statute in putting .up the sign, and ringing the bell, or blowing the whistle, a person approaching the track at the crossing of a road is not relieved from the duty of exercising ordinary care to avoid injury, and when he fails to use such ordinary care, he cannot recover damages. [R. R. Co. v. Le Gierse, 51 Tex. 202; Shear. & Red. on Neg. §§ 485, 488.]

February 9, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                              Exhibit 11

<TABLE>

                     ENGINEERED SUPPORT SYSTEMS, INC.
             STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<CAPTION>
                                                    Three Months Ended
                                                        January 31
                                               ----------------------------
                                                  2000              1999
                                               ----------        ----------
<S>                                            <C>               <C>
NET INCOME                                     $2,574,169        $1,388,403
                                               ==========        ==========

BASIC EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Average basic shares outstanding              6,928,043         4,852,342
                                               ==========        ==========

                                                     $.37              $.29
                                               ==========        ==========

DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE

  Average basic shares outstanding              6,928,043         4,852,342

  Net effect of dilutive stock options<F1>        150,158           179,997
                                               ----------        ----------
                                                7,078,201         5,032,339
                                               ==========        ==========

                                                     $.36              $.28
                                               ==========        ==========

<FN>
<F1> Based on the treasury stock method.
</TABLE>
                                 15