alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-1861

Lower Tribunal No. 22-CF-014094

_____________________________

CLIFTON LEMANZ SEAWRIGHT,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Bruce Kyle, Judge.

August 27, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.

Howard L. “Rex: Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Rachel Paige Roebuck, Assistant 

Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and David Campbell, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. 

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 24, 2022.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-22-00129-CV

WOLFE'S CARPET, TILE & REMODELING, LLC, Appellant

V.

GARY AND BEVERLY BOURELLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-69479

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed its notice of appeal on February 22, 2022 from an order 

signed January 26, 2022. That order was not final. Generally, appeals may be taken 

only from final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 

2001). When orders do not dispose of all pending parties and claims, the orders 

remain interlocutory and unappealable until final judgment is rendered unless a 

statutory exception applies. Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 

352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 
2

1992) (orig. proceeding). Appellees, defendants and counter-plaintiffs in the trial 

court, had outstanding claims pending against appellant at the time the order was 

signed. 

On April 18, 2022, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a 

response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 29, 

2022. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not respond.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Hassan, and Wilson.
Dismissed and Opinion Filed November 14, 2023. 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00781-CV CORNELIUS GIBSON, Appellant V. BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-19211 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue . After appellant failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record , we ordered the appeal submitted without a reporter’s record and for appellant’s br ief to be filed by October 20, 2023. By postcard dated October 24, 2023, we informed appellant his brief was overdue and directed him to file his brief within ten da ys. We cautioned appella nt that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed his brief or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

230781F.P05 /Robbie Partida-Kipness / ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT CORNELIUS GIBSON, Appellant
No. 05-23-00781-CV V. BANK OF AMERICA, Appellee On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-19211.Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Pedersen, III and Garcia participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered November 14, 2023
Exhibit 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                       18 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Daniel P. Beharry, Chief Executive Officer of Mera Pharmaceuticals, certify
that (1) Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 3 (a) or 15 (d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2003 fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of Mera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
                                             /S/  DANIEL P. BEHARRY
                                             ------------------------
                                             Daniel P. Beharry
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             09/03/2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Mera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be retained by Mera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
#### Harrison Bowman *v.*James Singleton.

Sales — Warranty.

The fact that the purchaser of mules paid their full value, is a circumstance from which the jury may conclude that the seller warranted their soundness.

*379APPEAL FROM GARRARD CIRCUIT COURT.

December 19, 1873.

*Dunlap, for appellant.*

*Bradley, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The only defense set up in the answer in this case, is the breach of an express covenant of warranty that the mules sold were at the time of the sale free from disease. Upon this question the testimony was conflicting. The motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered testimony was properly overruled. The only question this court need pass on is the correctness of the instructions given and refused.

The second instruction asked by appellant was properly refused. The fact that a round price is paid for personal property, is a circumstance from which the jury may in some cases infer a warranty of soundness, but to separate that fact from! all others in proof, and thereby attach special importance to it, is improper.

The second instruction given for appellee is incorrect. The fact that it was apparent when the mules were sold and delivered, that they were diseased, is by no means calculated to repel the idea of a ■warranty. If a round price was paid, and it was evident that the mules were diseased, the jury might very well, in a case like this, where the proof is conflicting, regard these circumstances as tending to show that their soundness was warranted.

The proof as to the condition of the mules was before the jury, and it was for them, and not for the court, to deduce conclusions from the facts established.

For this error the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.
**Exhibit10(f)(6)**

 

 

**AMENDMENT**

**TO**

**ALLTEL CORPORATION EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN**

**(October 1, 1993 Restatement)**

 

 

Effective April 25, 2002, Article V of the ALLTELCorporation Executive Deferred Compensation Plan under an October 1, 1993Restatement, as amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof a newsection which reads as follows:

 

11.         Amendment of Election Agreement. Notwithstanding any prior Plan Provisions or any other provision hereinto the contrary, a Participant may amend his previously executed ElectionAgreement so as to defer the payment of his Deferred Compensation Accountsand/or change the manner of payment of his Deferred Compensation Accounts,subject to the following conditions:

 

(a)         such amendment is made not less thantwelve (12) full calendar months (ten (10) full calendar months for electionsmade on or before April 30, 2002) prior to the date the lump sum payment or thefirst annual installment, as the case may be, would otherwise have been madepursuant to the previously executed Election Agreement;

 

(b)        payment under the amended ElectionAgreement is deferred to a date which is at least twelve (12) full calendarmonths later than the date the lump sum payment or the first annualinstallment, as the case may be, would otherwise have been made pursuant to thepreviously executed Election Agreement; and

 

(c)         the amended Election Agreement applieswith respect to all Deferred Compensation Accounts for all Deferral Years ofthe Participant under the Plan.

 

Any amendment of an Election Agreement which does notsatisfy the conditions set forth above shall be of no force or effect.

 

----
#### John Gordon JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leroy D. BACA, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-55870.

D.C. No. CV-99-13029-DDP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 7, 2001.

Decided May 29, 2001.

Before RYMER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Under AEDPA, the state court’s factual findings are presumed to be correct unless the petitioner can rebut the presumption *544by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). The state court here had ample evidence upon which to conclude that Jones posed a serious danger to women, and none of Jones’s arguments to the contrary are sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness.

Jones has not established that the state court decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The Constitution permits the denial of bail when an individual poses a danger to the community. *United States v. Salerno,*481 U.S. 739, 747, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987).

The procedures employed in the bail hearings were not directly contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Jones points to no cases clearly holding that he was entitled to cross-examine the rape victims at his bail hearing, or to cases holding that hearsay evidence was inadmissible. No Supreme Court precedent requires state courts to consider alternatives to custody when considering the denial of bail.

Jones never specifically argued that Article I, Section 12(b) of the California constitution is unconstitutional. Therefore this argument is waived.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This 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.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4643

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

to make grants to fire departments for the acquisition of thermal imaging 

cameras. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2004

Mr. FERGUSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make grants to fire departments for 

the acquisition of thermal imaging cameras.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Access to Thermal Im5 aging Cameras Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM. 

7 (a) AUTHORITY.—In accordance with this section, 

8 the Director of the Federal Emergency Management 

9 Agency may make grants, on a competitive basis, to fire 
2

•HR 4643 IH 

1 departments for the purpose of acquiring thermal imaging 

2 cameras. 

3 (b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share 

4 of the cost of acquiring equipment under subsection (a) 

5 shall be 33 percent. 

6 (c) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Of 

7 amounts made available under section 3, the Director may 

8 use not more than 10 percent for the administrative costs 

9 of carrying out this section. 

10 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days 

11 after making the first grant under subsection (a), the Di12 rector shall transmit to Congress a report on the results 

13 of the grant program under this section. 

14 SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

15 For the purposes of carrying out section 2, there is 

16 authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Fed17 eral Emergency Management Agency $100,000,000 for 

18 fiscal year 2005.

Æ
____________________________________

United States Department of Commerce 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Certificate of Metrological Traceability For:

Maryland 

This laboratory has demonstrated evidence of an unbroken chain of metrological traceability of its standards to the international system of units (SI), documented measurement uncertainties, uses documented measurement procedures, successfully 

completed training and proficiency tests, documented calibration intervals, submitted a quality management system, and 

demonstrated suitable measurement assurance for the Scope listed on this certificate.

The Office of Weights and Measures Program assesses laboratories to NIST Handbook 143 - Program Handbook for State 

Weights and Measures Laboratories and ISO/IEC 17025:2017.

Scope 2023 to 2024 

Katrice Lippa, Chief

NIST Office of Weights and Measures

Effective Dates: 2023-02-01 to 2025-02-01

Mass Echelon III Volume Transfer, II

20 kg to 1 mg 5 gal

50 lb to 0.001 lb

8 oz to 0.03125 oz

(Rev.: September 2021)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                                CERTIFICATION OF
                             CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Annual Report of The Midland Company (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2003 (the "Report"), I, John I. Von Lehman, 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/ John I. Von Lehman
------------------------------
John I. Von Lehman
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

March 12, 2004
                                         A signed original of this written
                                         statement required by Section 906 has
                                         been provided to The Midland Company
                                         and will be retained by The Midland
                                         Company and furnished to the Securities
                                         and Exchange Commission or its staff
                                         upon request.

                                       32
Order entered April 7, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00211-CR

VINCENT BARRON JACINTO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1730618-M

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s second motion for extension of time to file its 

brief. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER the brief received on April 6, 2022, 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

PRESIDING JUSTICE
#### R. J. Meyler *v.*Westly Phelps.

Principal and Surety — Equity of Surety.

A surety on a note who has paid it has an equity in the land in which the proceeds of the note were invested, to secure his reimbursement.

APPEAL PROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT.

October 25, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The witness upon whom appellee relies to show notice to the appellant of his equitable right to a part of the proceeds of the note in controversy, must have left the chancellor in doubt as to his right to enforce a lien by reason of a contract that the ap-pellee himself seems never to have complied with, and upon the performance of which his right to this equity depends. Although the notes taken by Collins upon a settlement of the claims against his father, refer to the judgment or action upon which the settlement was based (this proceeding showing the assignment to the appellee), still the execution of these notes by the heirs of Collins, directly to James Collins, and his holding them for nearly one year, connected with the effort on the part of the appellee to purchase them, would at least, so far as third persons are concerned, indicate a consent on the part of the appellee to the action of appellant in the premises. As between 'Collins and the appellee, we are disposed, however, to adjudge that the latter’s equity still exists, as there is no proof whatever showing that t'he appellee has been repaid, by any of the parties, the money advanced or paid by him to Miller as the surety of Gulp & Collins. It is alleged in the petition that the proceeds of these very notes were invested in the house and lot conveyed to the wife of Collins, and if so, even if there had been no evidence *246whatever relieving the appellant from liability as purchaser with notice, the property in which it was invested being subject to its payment, the chancellor should have first subjected it to the demand before requiring payment from Meyler, and particularly when the appellee, by this proceeding, is seeking to subject it. There is some question as to the proof on this subject, however, and the court below must be satisfied that this property was bought with these notes-, or the proceeds thereof, before Collins and wife can be deprived of their ownership, unless the purchase and conveyance was made in fraud of creditors. Upon this question the parties should be allowed to take proof. The ap-pellee’s equity must be enforced against Collins, and not the appellant. The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. - ,

*A. H. Field, R. T. Meyler, for appellant.*

*R. H. Field, Thompson, for appellee.*
Exhibit 10.3



Agreed terms document under the joint venture shareholders' agreement dated 14th
October 2005 among Baltic Petroleum (E&P) Limited, Siberian Energy Group Inc.
and Zauralneftegaz Limited

                               DEED OF RELEASE

THIS DEED OF RELEASE is made by deed on the 9th day of November 2005.

BETWEEN:

SIBERIAN  ENERGY  GROUP  INC.,  a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State  of  Nevada, United States and whose principal place of business is at 275
Madison  Avenue,  6th  floor,  New  York, NY 10016 ("SEG"); and

BALTIC PETROLEUM LIMITED,  a  company  incorporated  in  England and Wales under
company number 05303991  and whose registered office is at  18b Charles  Street,
London, W1J 5DU, United Kingdom ("BP").

WHEREAS:

BP  has agreed to release SEG from all its obligations to BP under the guarantee
(the  "GUARANTEE") dated 28 April 2005 made between SEG and BP pursuant to which
SEG  guaranteed  the  obligations  of  OOO  Zauralneftegaz  ("ZNG") under a loan
agreement dated 28 April 2005.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSES as follows:

1.  BP hereby irrevocably releases and discharges SEG from all obligations under
the Guarantee.

2. This Deed shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English Law.

IN WITNESS of which this Deed has been duly executed by BP on the date stated at
the beginning.

<PAGE>

EXECUTED AS A DEED by
BALTIC PETROLEUM LIMITED
acting by two Directors/
a Director and the Secretary:
)
)
)
Director  /s/ James Charles Pockney
        --------------------------

Name  James Charles Pockney
    ------------------------------

Director/Secretary /s/ James Mark Colin Gilchrist
                  ----------------------------

Name  James Mark Colin Gilchrist
    ------------------------------

Acknowledged for and on behalf of
SIBERIAN ENERGY GROUP, INC.
)
)
)
Authorised Representative  /s/ David Zaikin CEO
                          -----------------------

Name David Zaikin
    -----------------------------

<PAGE>
Exhibit 23 

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS’ CONSENT 

 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-86252, 333-10630, 333-6366, 333-103180, 333-105757, 333-105758, 333-109251 and 333-109252) on Form S-8 and the Registration Statement (No. 333-82728) on Form S-3 of our reports dated February 26,2004, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Moore Wallace Incorporated (formerly Moore Corporation Limited) for the year ended December 31, 2003. 

 

 

**DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP**

Toronto, Canada 

February 27, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                                 CERTIFICATIONS

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 As Adopted Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Hoolae Paoa, President and Chief Executive Officer of Mid-State Raceway, Inc.
and Subsidiary (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31,
2001 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d)); and

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

Date: January 10, 2004

/s/ Hoolae Paoa
Hoolae Paoa
President and Chief Executive Officer

                                                                              50
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50304

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTONIA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Paula Rodriguez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1621-ALL

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

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Antonia Rodriguez

raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal

offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is

GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.