alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 25, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00440

- CV

Joe GOMEZ and Janie Gomez,

Appellant s

v

.

Thomas L. DASHIELL

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 15

- 241

- CCL Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On June 29, 2015, appellants file d what this court construed as a notice of appeal from the county court’s June 18, 2015 judgment. On July 6, 2015, appellants also filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs in this court. It appears appellants also filed the affidavit in the trial court. The affidavit was filed in the trial court with or before the notice of appeal as required. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1 (c)(1). By order dated July 21, 2015

, we ordered the clerk of this co urt to send copies of the affidavit and our order to the trial court, the trial court clerk, the court reporter, and all parties and/or counsel. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 20.1 (d)(2). We further ordered that anyone who

desired to file a contest to the affidavi t to file such contests in this court on or before July 31,

2015.

No contests were filed. Because no contests were filed, appellants were considered indigent for purposes of this appeal. Both the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record have been

file d in this court. Accordingly, appellants brief was originally due September 11, 2015. Neither

the brief nor a motion for extension of time was filed.

We therefore ORDER appellants to file, on or before October 5, 2015

, their appell ant s = brief and a written response reasonably explaining their failure to timely file the brief. If they fail to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)._________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 25th day of September, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
 March 7, 2008
 /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz,President and Director of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership/s/ Frank P. VaughanFrank P. Vaughan,Chief Financial Officer of Cronos Capital Corp,.
General Partner of the Partnership  
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-3014

ALEXANDER GARCIA-RIVERA,

Petitioner,

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD,

Respondent.

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in NY0752080161-I-1.

ON MOTION

Before PROST Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The Department of Veterans Affairs moves to reform the official caption to

designate the Merit Systems Protection Board as respondent.

Alexander Garcia-Rivera filed an appeal with the Board challenging the termination

of his employment as a housekeeping aide. The Board concluded that it did not have

jurisdiction over Garcia-Rivera's claim because his appeal was untimely filed.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 7703(a)(2), the Board is designated as the respondent

when the Board's decision concerns the procedure or jurisdiction of the Board. In this

case, the Board dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Thus, the Board is the

proper respondent in this petition for review.

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motions are granted. The revised official caption is reflected above.

FOR THE COURT

FEB 4 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	Alexander Garcia-Rivera

Jane C. Dempsey, Esq.

Michael Carney, Esq.

s20

Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

FEB 0 4 2009

JAN HORBALY

CLERK

2009-3014	 2
<PAGE>


                                                                (Exhibit 3.1.16)
                              ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                            ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                              MEDIX RESOURCES, INC.

       Pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado  Business  Corporation Act, as
  amended (the "Act"), Medix Resources,  Inc., a corporation organized under the
  laws of the State of  Colorado,  by its  Secretary,  does  hereby  certify  as
  follows:

       1.  The name of the Corporation is Medix Resources, Inc.

       2. The Board of  Directors  of said  Corporation  has  consented  to, and
  authorized by a unanimous  written  consent,  the amendment to the Articles of
  Incorporation  contained herein, and passed  resolutions  declaring that it is
  advisable,  and decided to present such amendment to the  shareholders  of the
  Corporation at the Special Meeting of shareholders.

       3. Upon notice given to each  shareholder  of record  entitled to vote on
  such  amendment  to the  Articles  of  Incorporation  in  accordance  with the
  requirements  of the Act,  the  Special  Meeting  of the  shareholders  of the
  Corporation  was held on February 14, 2000 and adjourned to March 20, 2000, at
  which  meeting  holders  representing  quorum  power were present in person or
  represented  by proxy,  and the number of votes cast for the amendment by each
  voting group  entitled to vote  separately on the amendment was sufficient for
  approval by the voting group.

      4 . The amendment approved was as follows:

       Section 1 of Article IV of the Corporation's Articles of Incorporation is
  amended in its entirety to read as follows:

                                   ARTICLE IV
                                  CAPITAL STOCK

       Section 1. Classes and Shares  Authorized.  The total number of shares of
  Common Stock that the Corporation shall have authority to issue is One Hundred
  Million  (100,000,000) shares of Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share. The
  total  number of shares of  Preferred  Stock that the  Corporation  shall have
  authority to issue is Two Million Five Hundred Thousand  (2,500,000) shares of
  Preferred Stock, $1.00 par value per share.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  Medix  Resources,  Inc. has caused these Articles of
  Amendment  to  Articles  of  Incorporation  to be  signed  by  its  Secretary,
  effective as of the date of filing of these  Articles of Amendment to Articles
  of Incorporation with the Secretary of State of the State of Colorado.

                                    MEDIX RESOURCES, INC.


By: /s/ David Kinsella
                                                                  David Kinsella
                                        Its Secretary
[922 NE2d 872, 895 NYS2d 286]

#### Ana Velazquez, Appellant, v St. Barnabas Hospital, Respondent.

Decided December 17, 2009

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Abdul K. Hassan,*Queens Village, for appellant.

*Garbarini & Scher, EC.,*New York City *(William D. Buckley*of counsel), for respondent.

*895OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, without costs, by denying defendant’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and remitting the case to Supreme Court for further proceedings and, as so modified, affirmed.

The parties do not dispute that they agreed to settle the action for a specific amount; however, details regarding conditions of the settlement, including a disputed confidentiality agreement, were never recorded or memorialized. No agreement was made in open court or filed with the county clerk. Accordingly, it is not binding upon the parties *(see*CPLR 2104; *Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp.,*31 NY2d 1, 9-11 [1972]; *Andre-Long v Verizon Corp.,*31 AD3d 353, 354 [2d Dept 2006]).

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order modified, etc.
#### In re Estate Mullins

Case below: 182 N.C. App.-(17 April 2007)

No. 238P07

Petitioners’ (Diane and Jacques Geitner) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-468)

Denied 10/11/07
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 98 (Friday, May 22, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 24021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-12001]



[[Page 24021]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Disease, Disability, and Injury Prevention and Control Special 
Emphasis Panel (SEP): CDC Grants for Public Health Research 
Dissertation, Panel H, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) PAR07-
231, Initial Review

    In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) announce the aforementioned meeting.
    Time and Date: 12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., June 11, 2009 (Closed).
    Place: Teleconference.
    Status: The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with 
provisions set forth in Sections 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., 
and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services 
Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.
    Matters to be Discussed: The meeting will include the initial 
review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response 
to ``CDC Grants for Public Health Research Dissertation, Panel H, FOA 
PAR07-231.''
    Contact Person for more Information: Maurine F. Goodman, M.A., 
M.P.H., Scientific Review Officer, Office of the Director, Office of 
the Chief Science Officer, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop D72, 
Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-4737.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: May 14, 2009.
Elaine L. Baker,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. E9-12001 Filed 5-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7642

BERNARD MCFADDEN,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

SIMON MAJOR, Director of SLRDC in his individual and 

personal capacity; D. SCOTT COOK, Dietician of SLRDC in his 

individual and personal capacity,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(1:10-cv-01941-TMC)

Submitted: February 16, 2012 Decided: February 23, 2012

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard McFadden, Appellant Pro Se. James M. Davis, Jr., Joel 

Steve Hughes, DAVIDSON & LINDEMANN, PA, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bernard McFadden appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

McFadden v. Major, No. 1:10-cv-01941-TMC (D.S.C. Nov. 22, 2011). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT
10.9


 


FENTON-COWITT CASTING


 


Albert
S. Ruddy


9300
Wilshire Boulevard


Suite
508


Beverly
Hills, CA 90212


 


 


Re:
“Out of the Blue”/ “Cloud 9”


 


Dear
Albert:


 


This
is to confirm that as of today Fenton-Cowitt Casting has one percent of the net
profits of the above referenced film in perpetuity from all sources of income
after the break even.


 


 


Best
personal regards,


 


	
  /S/MIKE
  FENTON

  	
   

  
	
  Mike
  Fenton
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000820526
<NAME> LUND INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,254,818
<SECURITIES>                                12,066,124
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,290,544
<ALLOWANCES>                                   993,357
<INVENTORY>                                  6,663,776
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,975,400
<PP&E>                                       7,271,364
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,929,461
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              40,018,901
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,870,111
<BONDS>                                      4,130,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       439,397
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,569,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                40,018,901
<SALES>                                     31,192,835
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,192,835
<CGS>                                       20,633,477
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,412,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (13,075)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             221,741
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,039,555
<INCOME-TAX>                                   647,973
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,391,582
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.32
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.1

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

The undersigned, Steven G. Mihaylo, Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Inter-Tel, Incorporated (the
"Company"), has executed this certification in connection with the filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the "Report"). The undersigned hereby
certifies 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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
14th day of August, 2002.


/s/ Steven G. Mihaylo
----------------------------------
Steven G. Mihaylo
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICHARD NEWBERRY

,

Appellant,

v.

THE COUNTY OF EL PASO

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 176

- CV

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2019DCV1411 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on its own motion to dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction and concludes the appeal should dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction . We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER , 20 20

.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11716 and #11717]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida (FEMA-1831-DR), dated 04/21/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, Tornadoes, and Straight-line Winds.                    

*Incident Period:*                         03/26/2009 through 05/05/2009.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         05/11/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         06/22/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         01/21/2010.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Florida, dated 04/21/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Dixie, Gilchrist, Lafayette, Suwannee.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-11602 Filed 5-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### In the Matter of Kelly Brennan, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as the Police Commissioner of the City of New York and as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund, Article II, et al., Respondents.

[974 NYS2d 374]

*408Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered July 3, 2012, denying the petition to annul respondents’ determination, dated August 10, 2011, which denied petitioner’s application for World Trade Center accidental disability retirement benefits, and dismissing the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondents’ determination that petitioner was not present at the World Trade Center (WTC) site during the requisite time period is supported by credible evidence *(see*Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 [36] [a], [e], [f], [g]; *Matter of Meyer v Board of Trustees of N.Y. City Fire Dept., Art. 1-B Pension Fund,*90 NY2d 139, 145, 147 [1997]). Respondents’ investigation revealed no contemporaneous records, roll call or command logs, records of the Medical Division, or exposure logs, indicating that petitioner was present at the WTC site. All respondents’ records indicate that petitioner was in Brooklyn during the relevant period. Respondents were entitled to reject petitioner’s self-serving affidavit and the affidavits by two fellow officers, which were unsupported by contemporaneous memo book entries or other documentation *(see Matter of Velez v Kelly,*84 AD3d 693 [1st Dept 2011]).

Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the court did not improperly shift the burden of proof to her. Petitioner was not entitled to the statutory WTC presumption that her condition or impairment of health was incurred in the performance and discharge of duty, because, by failing to demonstrate that she was present at the WTC site, she failed to demonstrate a qualifying World Trade Center condition as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 2 (36) *(see*Administrative Code of City of NY § 13-252.1 [1] [a]; *Matter of Bitchatchi v Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Police Dept. Pension Fund, Art. II,*20 NY3d 268, 275 [2012] [“an officer’s disability or death *as a result of a qualifying condition*is presumed to be caused by his or her exposure at the WTC site for purposes of benefit upgrades” (emphasis added)]). Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2012 NY Slip Op 31709(11).]
July 23, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ISMAEL TREVINO , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00262

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

______________ __________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision ce rtified below for observance.
#### Mahmoud Diarassouba, Respondent, v William P. Urban et al., Defendants, and Spencer Lubin et al., Appellants.

Submitted May 24, 2010;

decided June 29, 2010

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.