alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 13

- 00018

- CV

KAREN ENDSLEY, BRAD ENDSLEY, AND ENDSLEY ELECTRIC, INC. D/B/A INDUSTRIAL POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant s V. MILLER, JAMES, MILLER & HORNSBY, L.L.P., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 12C1571

- CCL

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Karen Endsley, Brad Endsley, and Endsley Electric, Inc. d/b/a Industrial Power Systems, Inc., appellants, filed their notice of appeal March 8, 2013. The reporter’s record was filed March 19, and the clerk’s record was filed March 26, making appellants’ brief due April 25. When neither a brief nor a motion to extend time for filing same were re ceived by May 15, our clerk’s office contacted appellants by letter, extended the deadline for filing their brief to May 30, and warned them that failure to file the brief by May 30 would subject their appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b), (c). On May 30, Karen Endsley called our clerk’s office and stated that she had been working on the brief, which she claimed was almost complete, and requested that she be given a few more days

— until June 3

— to complete and file appellants’ brief. Endsley’s request was granted, and sh e appeared in person at our clerk’s office on June 3; however, rather than file the brief as she had stated she would, Endsley filed a motion for an extension of time. The motion was granted, and the deadline for filing appellants’ brief was extended to J une 25. The June 25 deadline came and went, and still no brief from the appellants. Consequently, our clerk’s office sent appellants a second notice informing them that their brief was, once again, late and directing them to file a brief on or before July 29, 2013, should they still desire to prosecute this appeal. Further, the notice warned appellants that their failure to file a brief on or before July 29 would subject the appeal to dismissal for want of prosecution. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(b), (c).3 O n July 29, 2013, Endsley once again contacted our clerk’s office and stated that she had completed the brief but that she lost it during a recent power outage. She indicated that she was working on reproducing the brief and was optimistic that she could h and deliver it to the clerk’s office on July 30. It is now August 14, and we have received neither the appellants’ brief nor a request for an extension of the briefing deadline. Pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3.

Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: August 14 , 2013 Date Decided: August 15 , 2013
*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

December 18, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________________

No. 05-41629

__________________________

RHONDA MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORP; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO, 

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

6:04-CV-418

___________________________________________________

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

AFFIRMED. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.6.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MANJIT SINGH,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 06-72740

Agency No. A77-835-411

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

Manjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration

judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal,

and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

FILED

DEC 22 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence an adverse

credibility finding and will uphold the determination unless the evidence compels a

contrary result. Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 741 (9th Cir. 2007). We review

de novo constitutional due process challenges to immigration decisions. Cinapian

v. Holder, 567 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition.

Contrary to Singh’s assertion, the record shows the IJ made an explicit

adverse credibility determination. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s adverse

credibility finding based on Singh’s submission of a fraudulent medical document. 

See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 745 (9th Cir. 2004) (upholding agency’s

reliance on the submission of fraudulent documents, the genuineness of which

went to the heart of the petitioner’s claim). Accordingly, his asylum and

withholding claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir.

2003).

The record also belies Singh’s assertion that the IJ and the BIA failed to

consider his CAT claim. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of his

CAT claim because it is based on the same evidence that the agency found to be

not credible, and Singh points to no other evidence showing it is more likely than

not he will be tortured. See id. at 1157.
3

Finally, we reject Singh’s claim that the IJ violated his due process rights by

denying his request for a continuance because Singh was not prevented from

reasonably presenting his case. See Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620

(9th Cir. 2006). The IJ granted Singh a five-month continuance in which to

prepare and send interrogatories to the government’s investigators in India in order

to attempt to rebut the evidence that the medical document was fraudulent, but

Singh failed to do so. Singh did not proffer any other evidence to the IJ at the next

hearing. Thus, the IJ did not err in denying another continuance. See Lata v. INS,

204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error for a due process violation). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
II 

Calendar No. 1 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 23 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 23 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2023 

Received; read the first time 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To rescind certain balances made available to the Internal 

Revenue Service. 

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 ‘‘Family and Small 

5 Business Taxpayer Protection Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESCISSION OF CERTAIN BALANCES MADE AVAIL7 ABLE TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. 

8 The unobligated balances of amounts appropriated or 

9 otherwise made available for activities of the Internal Rev10 enue Service by paragraphs (1)(A)(ii), (1)(A)(iii), (1)(B), 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 23 PCS

1 (2), (3), (4), and (5) of section 10301 of Public Law 117– 

2 169 (commonly known as the ‘‘Inflation Reduction Act of 

3 2022’’) as of the date of the enactment of this Act are 

4 rescinded. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 

2023. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 1 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 23 

AN ACT 

To rescind certain balances made available to the 

Internal Revenue Service. 

JANUARY 25, 2023 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       4,827,668
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  433,982
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,500
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,368,334
<PP&E>                                       2,986,478
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,350,811
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,572,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,644,345
<BONDS>                                        844,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     37,066
<COMMON>                                        94,201
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,395,128)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,572,572
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,497,861
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,871,017
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                89,082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,943
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (462,238)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (466,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (466,948)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.10)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



I, Mike HP Kwon, Chief Executive Officer of Axesstel, Inc. (the Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:



(1) the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Registrant.



Dated: March 30, 2004



|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|/s/    MIKE HP KWON                                                             
|                                                                                
|Mike HP Kwon President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Axesstel, Inc. and will be retained by Axesstle, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
(November 15, 2013)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Lester P. Irving, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 663]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Oneida County Court (Barry M. Donalty, J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of aggravated criminal contempt and assault in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed. Present — Centra, J.P, Fahey, Lindley, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-10715

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY WAYNE LIGHTFOOT, JR

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-3-ALL

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony Wayne

Lightfoot, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lightfoot has not

filed a response. Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 16, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
----

----

|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  May 15,      2009 | By:    | /s/ Thomas      J. Meaney                                                                              |   |
|------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                         |   | Thomas      J. MeaneyPresident      (Principal Executive Officerand      Principal  Financial Officer) |   |
Exhibit 32.2

BULOVA TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC. AND CONSOLIDATED AFFILIATES

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 Bulova Technologies Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John D. Stanton, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ John D. StantonJohn D. StantonPrincipal Financial Officer
May 27, 2010
The



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 19, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00191

- CR

Cesar A. SALCEDO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 1545

- CR

William Old, Judge Pr esiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Court has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing En Banc, and the motion

is DENIED.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 19th day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1

                           STATMON TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             19 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 Statmon Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Geoffrey Talbot, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

-----------------------------------------------
              GEOFFREY P. TALBOT
            CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                NOVEMBER 12, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Statmon Technologies Corp. and
will be retained by Statmon Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.2 


 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



    	 



    	 



    

 





 



     


     


    

Appendix A
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 217 

To require retailers who offer products for purchase through an internet 

website or a mobile application to disclose on such website or application 

the country of origin for each product offered for sale. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. VAN DREW (for himself and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To require retailers who offer products for purchase through 

an internet website or a mobile application to disclose 

on such website or application the country of origin 

for each product offered for sale. 

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 ‘‘Country of Origin La5 beling Requirement Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 217 IH

1 SEC. 2. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS 

2 FOR PRODUCTS SOLD ON RETAIL WEBSITES 

3 AND MOBILE APPLICATIONS. 

4 (a) DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.—Any person that 

5 operates an internet website or a mobile application and 

6 that sells or offers for sale, at retail, any product through 

7 such website or application, shall disclose on such website 

8 or application, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the 

9 country in which such product was manufactured or fi10 nally assembled. 

11 (b) EXCLUSION.—The requirements in subsection (a) 

12 shall not be construed to apply to any individual who uses 

13 an internet website or a mobile application operated by 

14 another person to sell or offer for sale any product. 

15 SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMIS16 SION. 

17 (a) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES.— 

18 A violation of section 2(a) shall be treated as a violation 

19 of a regulation under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal 

20 Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)) regard21 ing unfair or deceptive acts or practices. 

22 (b) POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.—The Federal 

23 Trade Commission shall enforce section 2(a) in the same 

24 manner, by the same means, and with the same jurisdic25 tion, powers, and duties as though all applicable terms and 

26 provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 217 IH

1 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into and made a part 

2 of this Act. Any person who violates such section shall be 

3 subject to the penalties and entitled to the privileges and 

4 immunities provided in the Federal Trade Commission 

5 Act. 

6 (c) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—Nothing in this Act 

7 shall be construed in any way to limit or affect the author8 ity of the Federal Trade Commission under any other pro9 vision of law. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices 

# Order

October 7, 2016

153116

153118

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 153116

COA: 321946

MPSC: U

- 017077

UPPER PENINSULA POWER COMPANY,

Respondent

- Appellant,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

_________________________________________/

ENBRIDGE ENERGY LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner

- Appellee,

v SC: 153118

COA: 321946

MPSC: U

- 017077

UPPER PE NINSULA POWER COMPANY,

Respondent

- Appellee,

and

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the December 22, 2015

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral

argument on whether to grant the applicat ions or take other action. MCR 7.305(H)(1).I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 7, 2016

p1004 2

Clerk The parties shall file suppl emental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order

addressing: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the analysis provided

in Dodge v Detroit Trust Co , 300 Mich 575, 613 (1942), was relevant to the

determination whether the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) exceeded its

statutory authority by enforcing a settlement agreement that included a revenue

decoupling mechanism for an electric utility; (2) if Dodge applies, whether the petitioner

was barred from arguing that the settle ment agreement is unenforceable or void; and (3)

whether the petitioner is procedurally barred from challenging the MPSC’s prior orders

when it failed to intervene in the cases or appeal from the orders. The parties may

address other issues but should not submit mere restatements of their application papers

.