alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered Ju ly 1 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00175 - CV BERNARD PATRUSKY, Appellant V. KENNETH BLOOMBERG AN D MARILYN BLOOMBERG, Appellee On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 11 - 14821 

### O RDER W e GRANT appellant’s June 27, 2014 second unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later than August 4, 2014. Appellant is cautioned that no further extensions wi ll be granted absent exigent circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tellabs, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Timothy J. Wiggins, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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/ Timothy J. Wiggins 
|Timothy J. Wiggins     
|Chief Financial Officer
|Date: May 9, 2007      

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



26
#### James Brandt, Appellant, v Reli Zahner, Respondent.

[974 NYS2d 482]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J.), entered April 17, 2012, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied.

The plaintiff, a pedestrian, allegedly was injured when, after crossing the westbound lane of I.U. Willets Road in Nassau *County, he was*struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant in the eastbound lane of that road. The plaintiff thereafter commenced this action to recover damages for personal injuries. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and the Supreme Court granted the motion.

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, the defendant failed to demonstrate her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. “A driver is bound to see what is there to be seen with the proper use of his [or her] senses” *(Topalis v Zwolski,*76 AD3d 524, 525 [2010]; *see Steiner v Dincesen,*95 AD3d 877 [2012]; *Zuleta v Quijada,*94 AD3d 876 [2012]; *Hammond v Diaz,*82 AD3d 839, 840 [2011]). Further, there can be more than one proximate cause of an accident *(see McIntosh v Village of Freeport,*95 AD3d 965 [2012]; *Gardner v Smith,*63 AD3d 783 [2009]), and the issue of comparative negligence is generally a question for the jury to decide *(see Jahangir v Logan Bus Co., Inc.,*89 AD3d 1064 [2011]).

Here, the defendant testified at her deposition that she did *753not see the plaintiff prior to “contact,” and that she had her foot on the accelerator pedal at the moment of contact. The defendant did not explain her failure to see the plaintiff, who had first traveled across the westbound lane of traffic before entering her eastbound lane of traffic, before her vehicle hit him. Accordingly, the defendant failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that she kept a proper lookout and that her alleged negligence did not contribute to the happening of the accident *(see Topalis v Zwolski,*76 AD3d at 525; *Katanov v County of Nassau,*91 AD3d 723, 725 [2012]; *see also Steiner v Dincesen,*95 AD3d at 878; *Hammond v Diaz,*82 AD3d at 840).

Since the defendant failed to demonstrate her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court should have denied her motion, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs opposition papers *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31092(H).]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2197 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2197

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 
 Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
 referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be 
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration 
  of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
                               concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Environmental 
 Protection Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants for fiscal year 
                                 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL 
              PROTECTION AGENCY, STATE AND TRIBAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Environmental Protection 
Agency, State and Tribal Assistance Grants for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $3,595,395,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

ALBERT J. SMITH, § § No. 284, 2014 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court of § the State of Delaware in and v. § for New Castle County § STATE OF DELAWARE, § § Plaintiff Below, § Cr. ID No. 0312008370 Appellee. §

Submitted: June 10, 2014 Decided: June 27, 2014

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, BERGER and RIDGELY, Justices.

O R D E R

This 27 th day of June 2014, it appears to the Court that: (1) On May 29, 2014, the Court received Albert J. S mith’s notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s order dated Apr il 23, 2014 and docketed April 24, 2014 summarily dismissing his third motio n for postconviction relief. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iii), Smith’ s notice of appeal should have been filed on or before May 26, 2014. 1

1 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 6(a)(iii) (providing that an appe al from a proceeding for postconviction relief must be filed within thirty d ays after entry upon the docket of the judgment or order).2

(2) On May 30, 2014, the Clerk issued a notice unde r Supreme Court Rule 29(b) directing Smith to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. 2 In response to the notice, Smith asserts that the appeal should be accepted as timely filed on Ma y 29, 2014, because he did not receive the Superior Court’s order of April 23, 2014 until April 30, 2014, “which is less than the 30 day time period.” (3) Under Delaware law, “[t]ime is a jurisdictional requirement.” 3 A notice of appeal must be received by the Office o f the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period to be effective. 4 An untimely appeal cannot be considered unless the appellant can demon strate that the failure to file a timely notice of appeal is attributable to c ourt-related personnel. 5 (4) In this case, contrary to Smith’s assertions, t he notice of appeal

was not received by the Clerk within thirty days after ent ry upon the docket of the April 23, 2014 order. Moreover, there is no thing to reflect that Smith’s failure to timely file the notice of appeal is attributable in any way to court personnel. Consequently, this case does n ot fall within the

2 See Del. Supr. Ct. R. 29(b) (governing involuntary dis missal upon notice of the Court).

3 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 829 (1989).

4 Del. Supr. Ct. R. 10(a).

5 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979).3

exception to the general rule that mandates the tim ely filing of a notice of appeal. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 6 and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>             UT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       76,661
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      6,242
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          13,810
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         4,795
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   3,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 104,798
<COMMON>                                         5,881
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       19,535
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              7,349
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  32,765
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        312
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            34,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              10,835
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  26,886
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  104,798
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        4,247
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             (558)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       2,909
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       3,261
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          (573)
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 432
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   (356)
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,078
<NET-INCOME>                                     (876)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          4
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                    (880)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           682
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (2,076)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 29, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00975-CV

IN RE: THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC.

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00585-A

ORDER

Before Justices Bridges and Brown1

Before the Court is real party in interest Kolby Listenbee’s motion for immediate 

temporary suspension of December 21, 2018 order and for clarification. We DENY his motion. 

The trial court’s January 3, 2019 order vacating its July 23, 2018 order denying relators’ plea in 

abatement and granting relators’ plea in abatement effectively abated the underlying proceeding. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 

 

1

Justice Boatright was originally on the panel; however, as of January 1, 2019, he is no longer a justice on the Court

and did not participate in deciding this motion.
##### 



FORM 6-K SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
 Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of August, 2004 Commission File Number: 33-81550 Great Lakes Power Inc. 
 Suite 300, BCE Place, 181 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario
Canada M5J 2T3
(416) 363-9491
(Address of principal executive offices) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F. Form 20-F o Form 40-F þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): _______ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): _______ Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Yes o No þ If Yes is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant
in connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- _______




---



##### 



EXHIBITS The following exhibits are filed as part of the Report on Form 6-K: Exhibit
    
    Description99.1
    
    
    Q2 2004 Interim Report99.2
    
    
    Q2 MD&A99.3
    
    
    CEO Certification99.4
    
    
    CFO Certification




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. Date: August 13th, 2004 Great Lakes Power Inc.By: (s) Donald Tremblay
Name: Donald Tremblay
Title: Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32(e)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER
  30, 2003

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Electric Utilities
  Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered
  Report"), I, the principal executive officer of the Company, pursuant to 18
  U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
  Act of 2002, hereby certify that:

| |  | The Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and                           
| | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |   |                                                                                                                                                                             
| |  | The information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        the Company.





|Date: November 10, 2003 | /s/ John F. SipicsJohn F. Sipics
        President 
        PPL Electric Utilities Corporation
|----------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4771 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 7, 2004 

Mr. BAKER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on cyclopentanone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CYCLOPENTANONE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.34.41 Cyclopentanone (provided 

for in subheading 

2914.29.50) ......................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2007 ’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to articles entered, or withdrawn 
2 

•HR 4771 IH 

1 from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 

2 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2307 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of State, 

Administration of Foreign Affairs, Repatriations Loans Program Account, Subsidize Gross Obligations for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of State, Administration of Foreign Affairs, 

Repatriations Loans Program Account, Subsidize Gross 

Obligations for fiscal year 2024. 

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


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2307 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 DEPARTMENT OF STATE, ADMINISTRATION 

3 OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, REPATRIATIONS 

4 LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT, SUBSIDIZE 

5 GROSS OBLIGATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for Department of State, Administration of Foreign 

9 Affairs, Repatriations Loans Program Account, Subsidize 

10 Gross Obligations for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 

11 $4,937,742. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our reports dated January 22, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of OMNOVA Solutions Inc.,
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended November 30, 2006,
and in the prospectuses constituting part of the following Registration Statements:



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-112530 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-100558 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88145 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Registration Statement No. 333-88587 on Form S-3,
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-88143 on Form S-8,
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | Post Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-34938 on Form S-8.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Akron, Ohio

January 22,
2007
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
CANISCO RESOURCES, INC.'S FORM 10Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         200,397
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               13,325,829
<ALLOWANCES>                                   768,284
<INVENTORY>                                    336,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            17,706,257
<PP&E>                                       5,156,637
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,269,487
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,800,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,337,559
<BONDS>                                      6,196,617
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,190
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,260,041
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,800,407
<SALES>                                     12,262,864
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,262,864
<CGS>                                       10,010,139
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,912,011
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (112,512)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             234,046
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                219,180
<INCOME-TAX>                                    87,672
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            131,508
<DISCONTINUED>                                (13,173)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   118,335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        


</TABLE>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

137151(27)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137151 COA: 284785 Kalamazoo CC: 97-000230-FC WILLIAM HALL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s May 27, 2009 order is considered, and it is DENIED, beca use it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.