alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-09-00032-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RICKEY T. TERRY, § APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

SHERIFF J.B. SMITH,

SMITH COUNTY AND § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

SMITH COUNTY DETENTION,

APPELLEES

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(a). The trial court’s judgment was signed on December 8, 2008. Under rule of

appellate procedure 26.1(a), unless Appellant timely filed a motion for new trial or other

postjudgment motion that extended the appellate deadlines, his notice of appeal was due to have

been filed “within 30 days after the judgment [was] signed,” i.e., January 7, 2009. Appellant did not

file his notice of appeal until January 29, 2009, and had not previously filed any motions that

extended the deadline for filing his notice of appeal.

On January 30, 2009, this court notified Appellant pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate

Procedure 42.3(a) that his notice of appeal was untimely. Appellant was further informed that unless

the record was amended on or before February 9, 2009 to establish the jurisdiction of this court, the

appeal would be dismissed. On February 13, 2009, Appellant filed a motion for extension of time

to file his brief, but did not furnish any information showing the jurisdiction of this court. Because

this court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as provided by Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). All pending motions are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered February 18, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### Eileen Mary Gavallas et al., Appellants, v Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York, Respondent.

[829 NYS2d 131]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated June 29, 2005, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The injured plaintiff arrived at her workplace on a rainy day, and, upon entering the building, which her employer leased from the defendant, slipped and fell on water and mud that apparently had been tracked into the building from outside. The injured plaintiff and her husband commenced this action, alleging that the defendant negligently allowed the water and mud to accumulate, and failed to place mats on the floor at the location of the accident.

An out-of-possession property owner is not liable for injuries that occur on the property unless the owner has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to perform maintenance and repairs *(see Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, Inc.,*31 AD3d 686 [2006]; *Ingargiola v Waheguru Mgt.,*5 AD3d 732, 733 [2004]; *Thompson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.,*305 AD2d 581 [2003]). A landlord’s limited right of reentry does not give rise to liability, unless there exists a significant structural or design defect which violates a specific statutory provision *(see Lowe-Barrett v City of New York,*28 AD3d 721, 722 [2006]; *Seney v Kee Assoc.,*15 AD3d 383, 384 [2005]; *Sangiorgio v Ace Towing & Recovery,*13 AD3d 433 [2004]).

*658The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that it had relinquished control of the building to the injured plaintiffs employer, and that it was not responsible under the terms of the lease for placing mats near the entrances or mopping up water that was tracked into the building (see *Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, supra; Ingargiola v Waheguru Mgt., supra*at 733; *Thompson v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., supra*at 582; *Vijayan v Bally’s Total Fitness,*289 AD2d 224 [2001]; *Pirillo v Long Is. R.R.,*208 AD2d 818 [1994]). Moreover, the defendant established that the accident was not caused by a structural or design defect *(see Couluris v Harbor Boat Realty, supra; Sangiorgio v Ace Towing & Recovery, supra).*In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Prudenti, PJ., Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001092570
<NAME>                        Fullnet Communications, INc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         12,671
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  70,306
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               98,468
<PP&E>                                         369,155
<DEPRECIATION>                                 251,893
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 564,213
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          276,777
<BONDS>                                        645,871
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21
<OTHER-SE>                                     (299,507)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   564,213
<SALES>                                        1,121,954
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,121,954
<CGS>                                          446,814
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1,595,750
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               39,928
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             77,871
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (591,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (591,595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (591,595)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.30)



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  FOR PPL CORPORATION'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2005

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Corporation (the
  "Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, 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:  May 4, 2005 | /s/ William F. HechtWilliam F. Hecht
        Chairman, President and
        Chief Executive Officer
        PPL 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2356 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2356

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for International 
            Organizations and Programs 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 International 
            Organizations and Programs 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 INTERNATIONAL 
              ORGANIZATIONS AND PROGRAMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for International 
Organizations and Programs for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed 
$339,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of Scott F. Saidel, a Suspended Attorney, Respondent.

[869 NYS2d 915]

Motion by the respondent, Scott F. Saidel, for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law. By judgment and order of the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona dated October 29, 2003, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law in Arizona for a period of six months retroactive to March 12, 2001, and placed on probation for a period of one year upon reinstatement. By opinion and order of this Court dated August 8, 2005, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law based upon the disciplinary action taken *635against him by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, for a period of one year, commencing June 9, 2005. By decision and order on motion dated May 5, 2006, this Court, inter alia, denied that branch of the respondent’s motion which was for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law with leave to renew upon the submission of a properly completed application, including but not limited to, the respondent’s submission of all required documentation. By decision and order on motion of this Court dated March 14, 2008 [2008 NY Slip Op 66581(U)], the respondent’s second application for reinstatement was held in abeyance and the matter was referred to the Committee on Character and Fitness to investigate and report on the respondent’s current fitness to be an attorney, “including but not limited to: (1) the respondent’s compliance with the order of suspension and 22 NYCRR 691.10, in particular, whether he held himself out as a lawyer and dispensed any legal advice; (2) the facts and circumstances surrounding the respondent’s recent traffic infractions or violations for speeding and failure to obey a traffic signal; (3) the nature of the respondent’s position as ‘managing partner’ with The Carcierge, LLC; (4) the respondent’s connection with Carefree Development Corporation; (5) the status of the respondent’s application to the Florida bar; (6) the basis for the respondent’s motion to set aside his conviction pending in the Arizona courts; (7) the amount of restitution the respondent paid to the victims of the automobile accident; (8) the sentence imposed by the Arizona courts and the amount of time the respondent served; and (9) the absence of character letters.” The respondent was admitted to the bar at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department on October 19, 1994. Upon the report of the Committee on Character and Fitness dated November 3, 2008, and the exhibits annexed thereto, it is

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that, effective immediately, the respondent Scott F. Saidel is reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law and the Clerk of the Court is directed to restore the name of Scott F. Saidel to the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law. Prudenti, EJ., Mastro, Rivera, Spolzino and Santucci, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2265 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2265

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, State Mediation 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 Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 
of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, State Mediation 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 US DEPARTMENT OF 
              AGRICULTURE, FARM SERVICE AGENCY, STATE MEDIATION GRANTS 
              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for US Department of 
Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, State Mediation Grants for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $3,904,000.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

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 Wellstone Filters, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form  10-KSB/A for the  period  ending  December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"),  I, Learned J. Hand, Chief Executive and 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:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities and 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/ Learned J. Hand
By: Learned J. Hand
Chief Executive and Financial Officer
June 3, 2004
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2273 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US Department 

of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs, Rural Housing Service, 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account 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 Financial Services 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for US 

Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Programs, Rural Housing Service, Rural Housing Insurance 

Fund Program Account 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 2273 IH

1 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

2 US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL 

3 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS, RURAL HOUSING 

4 SERVICE, RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND 

5 PROGRAM ACCOUNT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

6 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

7 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail8 able for US Department of Agriculture, Rural Develop9 ment Programs, Rural Housing Service, Rural Housing 

10 Insurance Fund Program Account for fiscal year 2024 

11 may not exceed $1,000,000,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In condition with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, George G. Usher, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By                      | /s/  George G. Usher |   |
|-------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
| George G. Usher,        |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| December 15, 2003       |

 

1
#### C. Edward MOORE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA, California; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 05-56014.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 12, 2006.*

Decided June 19, 2006.

C. Edward Moore, Santa Monica, CA, pro se.

Debra S. Kanoff, Esq., Office of the City-Attorney, Santa Monica, CA, Paul C. Epstein, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

C. Edward Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging due process and equal protection violations arising from parking tickets he received in Santa Monica. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, *Nelson v. Heiss,*271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s equal protection claim alleging that urban dwellers receive more parking tickets than suburban and rural dwellers. *See Wayte v. United States,*470 U.S. 598, 608-10, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (a mere failure of those who administer the law to treat equally all persons who violate the law does not constitute a denial of equal protection).

The district court also properly dismissed Moore’s due process claims as the State of California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 532, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); *see also*Cal. Veh. Code § § 4025 & 40215(b).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore’s action without leave to amend, because the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured. *See Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

Moore’s remaining contentions are without merit.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, James D. Tilton, Jr., 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 on Form 10-K of NuMobile, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010 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 report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of NuMobile, Inc.








Dated: March 31, 2011
By:
/s/ James D. Tilton, Jr.James D. Tilton, Jr.Principal Executive Officer,

Principal Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATE 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 Yearly Report of AVVAA World Health Care Products, Inc.(the "Company") on Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-KSB forthe year ended May 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, CharlesAustin, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 ofthe 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 respect, the financial condition and result of operations of

 
the Company.

 
 

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.

 

/s/ *Charles Austin*

Name:  

Charles Austin

 
Title:  

Chief Financial Officer

 

Date:  

October 26, 2005

 

  |