alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 85043 

FILE 

OCT 06 2022 

A. enwN 

EME COURT 

DEPU ERK 

11 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ROBERT FORD, AN INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

R.A.A.M. CORP., 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging an order denying 

a motion to alter or amend the judgment. Eighth Judicial District Court, 

Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge. 

Because this court has held that such orders are not 

independently appealable, this court entered an order directing appellant 

to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. See NRAP 3A(b). This court further noted that although a 

default had been entered against third-party defendant Valley Electric 

Association, no default judgment has been entered. Appellant has 

responded and confirms that the appeal is from both the underlying 

judgment and the denial of the tolling motion. 

However, the jurisdictional issue remains with respect to the 

default entered against Valley Electric. Appellant's argument that the 

entry of default should serve as a final disposition of claims against Valley 

Electric is unavailing. A default, unlike a default judgment, does not fully 

resolve any claims. See generally Estate of Lornastro v. Am. Family In.s. 

Grp., 124 Nev. 1060, 1068, 195 P.3d 339, 345 (2008) (recognizing the 

distinction between a default and a default judgment). Accordingly, the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 22 -31 s-Z3-
district court has not entered a final written judgment adjudicating all the 

rights and liabilities of all the parties, and the district court did not certify 

its order as final pursuant to NRCP 4(b). Lee v. GNLV Corp., 116 Nev. 

424, 996 P.2d 416 (2000); KDI Sylvan Pools v. Workman, 107 Nev. 340, 810 

P.2d 1217 (1991); Rae v. All American Life & Cas. Co., 95 Nev. 920, 605 P.2d 

196 (1979). This court lacks jurisdiction, and 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

..444G,0 J. 

Stiglich 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge 

Kristine M. Kuzemka, Settlement Judge 

Law Office of Corey B. Beck, P.C. 

Olson, Cannon, Gormley, & Stoberski 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

911) I947A 

2
SUBROUTINE DOT(A,B,IMIN,IMAX,PARPRO,DOTPRO) 
C     PURPOSE--TO COMPUTE THE DOT PRODUCT BETWEEN 2 VECTORS--A AND B. 
C     ONLY ELEMENTS IMIN THROUGH IMAX OF THE 2 VECTORS ARE CONSIDERED.
C     THE COMPUTED DOT PRODUCT IS ADDED TO THE INPUT VALUE PARPRO
C     TO YIELD A FINAL ANSWER FOR DOTPRO.
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      DOUBLE PRECISION SUM,PROD,DPARPR
      DIMENSION A(1),B(1)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      DPARPR=PARPRO 
      SUM=0.0D0
      IF(IMIN.GT.IMAX)GOTO150 
      DO100I=IMIN,IMAX
      PROD=A(I)*B(I)
      SUM=SUM+PROD
  100 CONTINUE
  150 DOTPRO=SUM+DPARPR
C
      RETURN
      END
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2022-2655

_____________________________

TRAVIS LEE HARDY DELACRUZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Linda L. Nobles, Judge.

February 22, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROWE, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT, 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>                          JUN-29-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                           3,196
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,215
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                86,940
<PP&E>                                          15,673
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 153,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,852
<BONDS>                                        109,556
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           378
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   153,207
<SALES>                                        122,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               122,791
<CGS>                                          108,311
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  108,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,303
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,824
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,353
<INCOME-TAX>                                       232
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,121
<DISCONTINUED>                                     727
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,848
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
        
<FN>
<F1>THE COMPANY'S EQUITY IS NOT PUBLICLY TRADED.
</FN>

</TABLE>
H. R. 3858

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend the Public Health Service Act to increase the supply of pancreatic islet

cells for research, and to provide for better coordination of Federal efforts and

information on islet cell transplantation.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pancreatic Islet Cell Transplantation Act of 2004’’.

SEC. 2. ORGAN PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION CERTIFICATION.

Section 371 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 273)

is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(c) Pancreata procured by an organ procurement organization

and used for islet cell transplantation or research shall be counted

for purposes of certification or recertification under subsection (b).’’.

SEC. 3. ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON PANCREATIC ISLET CELL

TRANSPLANTATION.

Section 429 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285c–

3) is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘(d) In each annual report prepared by the Diabetes Mellitus

Interagency Coordinating Committee pursuant to subsection (c),

the Committee shall include an assessment of the Federal activities

and programs related to pancreatic islet cell transplantation. Such

assessment shall, at a minimum, address the following:

‘‘(1) The adequacy of Federal funding for taking advantage

of scientific opportunities relating to pancreatic islet cell

transplantation.

‘‘(2) Current policies and regulations affecting the supply

of pancreata for islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(3) The effect of xenotransplantation on advancing pancreatic islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(4) The effect of United Network for Organ Sharing policies

regarding pancreas retrieval and islet cell transplantation.

‘‘(5) The existing mechanisms to collect and coordinate

outcomes data from existing islet cell transplantation trials.

‘‘(6) Implementation of multiagency clinical investigations

of pancreatic islet cell transplantation.
H. R. 3858—2

‘‘(7) Recommendations for such legislation and administrative actions as the Committee considers appropriate to increase

the supply of pancreata available for islet cell transplantation.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
No. 13,749.

#### Daubenspeck *v.*Pool et al.

Filed March 12, 1891.

*Moetgage.*— Action *to Foreclose.*— Plea *of Payment.*— Sufficiency *of*Evidence.— In an action on a mortgage alleged to have been lost, where, as tending, to establish a plea of payment, one witness testifies that the plaintiff told him that “ the mortgagor had lifted the mortgage,” and another testified that she saw the mortgage in the possession of the mortgagor, a verdict for the defendant will not be disturbed as unsupported by the evidence.

From the Marion Circuit Court.

*I. Klingensmith*and *W. P. Adkinson,*for appellant.

*J. A. New,*for appellees.

Elliott, J.

The appellant’s complaint is founded upon, a mortgage alleged to have been lost, and the issue in the case was made by a plea of payment. It is asserted by appellant’s counsel that there is no evidence tending to establish the defence, but in this counsel are in error. There is-certainly some evidence to that effect. One witness swears-that the appellant told him that *“*the mortgagor had lifted the mortgage,” and another swears that she saw the mortgage in the possession of the mortgagor. While the evidence of payment is not satisfactory, and while it is true that if the case were before us as triers of the facts, we would be inclined to a different conclusion from that reached by the trial court, still, the long settled rules of law constrain us to abide by the decision of the lower court.

Judgment affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 28, 2022

No. 04-21-00556-CV

BEXAR APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD,

Appellant

v.

LUCIFER LIGHTING COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-CI-09696

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying its plea to the jurisdiction. An 

appeal from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 51.014(a)(8).

The trial court signed the order on October 27, 2021. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the 

notice of appeal was due November 16, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). A motion for 

extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on December 1, 2021. See TEX. R. APP. P.

26.3. Although appellant filed a notice of appeal within the fifteen-day grace period allowed by 

Rule 26.3, it did not file a motion for extension of time. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). However, the 

appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely 

manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). 

We therefore ORDER appellant to file, within fifteen days from the date of this order, a 

written response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a 

timely manner. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be 

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Further, appellant’s brief was due January 11, 2022, but has not been filed. We ORDER 

appellant to file, on or before February 17, 2022 its appellant’s brief and a written response 
reasonably explaining (1) its failure to timely file the brief and (2) why appellee is not 

significantly injured by appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. If appellant fails to file a brief 

and the written response by the date ordered, its appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary 

dismissal if appellant has failed to comply with a court order).

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of January, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3

Eastern Division

Illinois State Rifle Association, et al.

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−04270

Honorable Mary M. Rowland

Brendan F. Kelly, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, June 28, 2021:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Mary M. Rowland: Plaintiffs' unopposed

motion to lift the stay of Defendants' deadline to respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint

[92] is granted. The stay of defendants' deadline is lifted. Defendants shall answer or

otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' amended complaint by 7/9/21. Mailed notice. (dm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-04270 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/28/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:547
EXHIBIT 32.1



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

  I,  Hasit  Vibhakar,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
Report  of  Telesis  Technology  Corporation  on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in
such  Form  10-KSB  fairly  presents  in  all  material  respects  the financial
condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Telesis  Technology  Corporation.

    By:/s/ Hasit Vibhakar
  --------------------------
      Hasit Vibhakar
    Chief Executive Officer

April 3, 2006

<PAGE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley v. John McClanahan

Appellate case number: 01-13-00982-CV

Trial court case number: D-13-5,197

Trial court: County Court of Colorado County, Texas

On November 1, 2013, appellants, Larry Stanley and Terri Stanley, filed an affidavit of 

indigence in the trial court in the above-referenced matter. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a)(2). On 

December 19, 2013, the district clerk notified the Court that no contest to the affidavit of 

indigence was filed. Therefore the allegations in the affidavit are deemed true, and appellants

are entitled to proceed without advance payment of costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f).

The Clerk of this Court is ORDERED to make an entry in this Court’s records that 

appellants are indigent and are allowed to proceed on appeal without advance payment of costs. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(f), (n).

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED filed with this Court within 30 days of the date the 

reporter’s record is filed.

1

 See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a). Appellee’s brief, if any, must be filed 

within 30 days after the date appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: December 27, 2013

 

1 The clerk’s record was filed on November 14, 2013. The current deadline for the 

reporter’s record is December 27, 2013.
EXHIBIT 12.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE
		OFFICER

I, Marek Kreczmer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on
		Form 20-F of Northwestern Mineral Ventures Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
		statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrants other certifying
		officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
		controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
		15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and
		procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed
		under our supervision, 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
		Companys disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report
		our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and
		procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
		evaluation;

c. Disclosed in this report any change in
		the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred
		during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or
		is reasonably





---



likely to materially affect the
		registrants internal control over financial reporting;

5. The Companys other certifying
		officer and I have disclosed, based upon our most recent evaluation of internal
		controls over financial reporting, to the Companys auditors and the audit
		committee of the Companys board of directors:

(a)
			 All significant deficiencies and
				  material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
				  financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
				  Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
				  information; and


(b)
			 Any fraud, whether or not material,
				  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
				  Companys internal control over financial reporting.




Date: June 25th, 2007
			 
			 
			 /s/ Marek KreczmerMarek KreczmerPresident and Chief Executive
				  Officer






---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.S.W., A/K/A. 

D.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 376 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: N.C.W.-M, A/K/A 

N.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 377 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF:: N.A.W., A/K/A. 

N.W., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 378 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.E.M., A/K/A. 

D.M., A MINOR

PETITION OF: N.L.W., MOTHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 379 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 20th day of September, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
KOGER EQUITY DOES NOT FILE A CLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET, THEREFORE THESE NOT
PROVIDED. 5-02 (9), 5-02 (21)
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,563
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,463
<ALLOWANCES>                                       286
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         606,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                  72,220
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 585,053
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        253,053
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           205
<OTHER-SE>                                     316,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   585,053
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,835
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,040
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,897
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,637
<INCOME-TAX>                                       407
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,230
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>