alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pedro VISTAN, Jr.; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General,* Respondent.

Nos. 03-74114.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.**

Decided Feb. 22, 2005.

*305Lea Greenberger, Attorney at Law, Encino, CA, for Petitioners.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thomas K. Ragland, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

**

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

*

 Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Pedro Vistan, Jr., together with his wife and three children, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted *in absentia.*We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings. *Celis-Castellano v. Ashcroft,*298 F.3d 888, 890 (9th Cir.2002). We grant the petition and remand for further proceedings.

The IJ improperly denied the Petitioners’ motion to reopen for lack of evidence because they submitted a death certificate and several signed letters to support their claims. *See Singh v. INS,*213 F.3d 1050, 1053 (9th Cir.2000) (indicating that a motion to reopen shall be supported by affidavits *or*other evidentiary material) (emphasis added); *see also*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(1). The Petitioners’ failure to produce medical records was not fatal to their motion to reopen because their letters indicated that Vistan did not seek medical treatment for his health condition. *See, e.g., id.*at 1053-54 (9th Cir.2000) (holding that it is not proper to deny a motion to reopen immigration proceedings conducted *in absentia*for lack of medical records where the evidence submitted established that medical treatment was not sought or rendered). Accordingly, we remand so that the IJ can determine whether the death of Vistan’s brother or Vistan’s resulting health condition constitute an “exceptional circumstance” excusing the Petitioners’ failure to appear.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.

***

 xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<PAGE>
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. I, James R. Lattanzi, Chief Financial Officer of King
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

1.       The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15
         (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.       The information contained in this report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


                                             /s/ James R. Lattanzi
Date:  July 28, 2003                         --------------------------
                                             James R. Lattanzi
                                             Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Robert G. Adams, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Health Realty, 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.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we
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 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 such evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and 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 function):

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 controls; and

6.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there
were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard
to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 1, 2006

| | /s/ Robert G. Adams    
| | -----------------------
| | Robert G. Adams        
| | President              
| | Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.27

Summary of Base Salary Compensation Arrangements with Named Executive Officers

Based on the results of the information collected by the independent consultant and in keeping with its philosophy to compensate officers at a rate below the
median for similarly situated executives at peer airlines, the Board of Directors of Frontier Airlines, Inc. established the following base salaries of the named executives for 2005.

Named Executive

Base SalaryJeff S. Potter

$
295,000Paul H. Tate

$
200,000Sean Menke

$
200,000Ann E. Block

$
175,000James Sullivan, Jr.

$
164,000


None
of the named executive officers are party to employment agreements or other written agreements with respect to their employment or compensation and are considered at will employees.
The salaries
listed below remain in effect until otherwise modified by the Board of Directors upon recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board.



QuickLinks
Case 2:15-mj-01772-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01772-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01772-JFM Document 3 Filed 10/22/15 Page 3 of 3
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: Ex parte Matthew James Leachman

Appellate case number s : 01

- 20

- 00841

- CR

, 01

- 20

- 0084 2

- CR

, 01

- 20

- 0084 3

- CR

Trial court case nu mber s : 1694181 , 1694180, 1694182

Tria l court: 248th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed : N ovember 29, 2021

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied

. See T EX

. R. A PP . P.
49.7

.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas

- Molloy

Acting for the Court

En banc Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Kelly , Goodman, Landau, Hightower , Countiss, Rivas

- Molloy, Guerra

, a nd Farris

.

Date: January 4, 2022
#### John W. Davison et al *v.*Anderson Gee.

Principal and Surety — Release—Receipt for Usury Paid.

*A*receipt for $80.00 for “indulgence” on a note, where shown by the pleadings to have been given for usury paid, and was for forbearance, would not release the sureties, except for the usury thus paid.

APPEAL FROM TRIGG CIRCUIT COURT.

January 28, 1870.

McPherson, *for appellant.*

Dabney, *for appellee:*

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The. receipt exhibited imports that the $80 paid for “indulgence” procured by a binding agreement on extension of credit to the principal obligor; which presumption may have exonerated the appellants, as his now concurring sureties. But the allegations of the amended petition repel that presumption, and if true, show that the $80 so receipted for, were paid for usury to that amount, 'which all parties agreed to pay, at the date of the note, and consequently that the “indulgence,” was forbearance according to the original contract by principal and sureties. These allegations were not traversed, and must therefore be treated as admitted. If then there was no available error in the admission of that amendment after the commencement of the trial, the judgment against the sureties which allows the $80 as a credit, as was conceded in the amended petition, was right, unless the court erred in the instruction given. And we cannot say that the admission of the amendment was an abuse of the discretion of the court.

The peremptory instruction given seems to have been authorized by the facts as admitted by the pleadings.

Wherefore the judgment is *affirmed■*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Human Resources","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Ytp5cJkdc2\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/human-resources\/\">Human Resources<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/centers-and-facilities\/nssc\/human-resources\/embed\/#?secret=Ytp5cJkdc2\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Human Resources” — NASA\" data-secret=\"Ytp5cJkdc2\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/healthy-hands-810x424-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":314}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             467
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,685
<ALLOWANCES>                                       245
<INVENTORY>                                      7,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,957
<PP&E>                                          33,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,859
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,186
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,209
<SALES>                                          8,274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,344
<CGS>                                            5,853
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,853
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,762
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  70
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,296)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (36)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,260)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,260)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)


</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40790 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

GERARDO MELENDEZ, also known as Jerry

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:14

- CR

- 404

- 2

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Gerardo Melendez has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Melendez has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Melendez ’s
response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no

* 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 June 4, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40790 Document: 00514498464 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2018No. 17

- 40790

2 nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s mot ion for leave
to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities
herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40790 Document: 00514498464 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2018
#### DOMINICK CARUSO v. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"iss061e012956","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"2LXn50FoaS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/iss061e012956\/\">iss061e012956<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/iss061e012956\/embed\/#?secret=2LXn50FoaS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“iss061e012956” — NASA\" data-secret=\"2LXn50FoaS\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/12\/andrewmorgan_plants3.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":551}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Jermaine Walker","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/jwalke32\/","title":"Canberra 34-meter Antenna","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dhHHqaWjI0\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-complex-04\/\">Canberra 34-meter Antenna<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/canberra-complex-04\/embed\/#?secret=dhHHqaWjI0\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Canberra 34-meter Antenna” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dhHHqaWjI0\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/canberra-complex-04-1.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":800}
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 Annual Report of Track Data Corporation on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we, Barry Hertz, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company and Martin Kaye, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/
 -----------------------------------------------
     Barry Hertz
     Chief Executive Officer
     March 20, 2003


/s/
-------------------------------------------------
     Martin Kaye
     Chief Financial Officer
     March 20, 2003
Order entered August 6, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00329

- CR No. 05

- 14

- 00330

- CR
DANIEL URBINA, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, T exas Trial Court Cause No s . F07

- 23478

- U , F08

- 00824

- U



### O RDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to make findings of fact regarding whether appellant has been deprived of the reporter’s record because of ineffective counsel, indigence, or for any

other reason

.

 The trial court shall first determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeals. If the trial court determines that appellant does not desire to prosecute the appeals, it shall make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines that appellant desires to prosecute the appeals, it shall next determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment of costs for the reporter’s record. If appellant is entitled to proceed without payment of costs, the trial court sha ll make a finding to that effect. Moreover, if appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which may include appointment of new counsel. If the trial court finds appellan t is not indigent, it shall determine whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeals. The trial court shall next determine: (1) the name and address of each court reporter who

recorded the proceedings in this cause; (2) the court reporter’s explanati on for the delay in filing the reporter’s record; and (3) the earliest date by which the reporter’s record can be filed.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record, containing the written findings of fact, any supporting documentation, and any orders, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date
of this order. The appeals are ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeals shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received,
whichever is earlier. /s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE