alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00217

- CV

N. P. and J. P., Appellant s

v.
Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY NO. C2017

- 2053B THE HONORABLE CHARLE S A. STEPHENS II, JUD GE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant s N. P. and J. P. filed their notice s of appeal on March 29, 2019
, and
April 2, 2019
, respectively . The appellate record was complete May 9, 2019 , making appellant s ’

brief s due May 29, 2019

. To date, appellant N. P. has not filed a brief

.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals
from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days
for court’s final disposi tion). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing

deadlines. Therefore, we order N. P. to file appellant’s brief no later than June 2 1 , 2019 . If the
brief is not filed by that date, the appeal of N. P. may be dismissed for want o f prosecution

.

It is ordered on June 11, 2019.2

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
INTER-TEL,  INCORPORATED AND SUBSIDIARIES  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED  SEPTEMBER  30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          63,564
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,586
<ALLOWANCES>                                     5,857
<INVENTORY>                                     18,589
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,036
<PP&E>                                          63,619
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 219,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           54,412
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       104,432
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,025
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   219,739
<SALES>                                        225,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               225,113
<CGS>                                          113,933
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,933
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  54
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 31,271
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,889
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             19,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,382
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .72


</TABLE>
#### Hamlet at Willow Creek Development Co., LLC, et al., Respondents, v Northeast Land Development Corporation et al., Respondents, and Pav-Co Asphalt, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant. Hamlet at Willow Creek Development Co., LLC, et al., Respondents, v Northeast Land Development Corporation et al., Respondents, and Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Submitted November 9, 2009;

decided December 17, 2009

Reported below, 64 AD3d 85.

Motion by Surety & Fidelity Association of America, insofar as it seeks leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, granted and the brief is accepted as filed; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein, dismissed as academic.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000891915
<NAME>                        RECONDITIONED SYSTEMS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,103,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,722,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (31,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    909,622
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,755,831
<PP&E>                                         571,194
<DEPRECIATION>                                (382,021)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,132,743
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          866,373
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,586,982
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,320,612)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,132,743
<SALES>                                     11,042,451
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,042,451
<CGS>                                        8,396,278
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,047,123
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (56,764)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,050,816
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,050,816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,050,816
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62


</TABLE>
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 connection with the Quarterly Report of Arete Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
P. Raabe, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.
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.

Dated: August 19, 2003                   By: /s/ Thomas P. Raabe
                                             -------------------
                                              Chief Executive Officer and
                                              Interim Chief Financial Officer
#### VITKUS v. UNION CASTLE MAIL S. S. CO., Limited.

Civ. 6248.

District Court, E. D. New York.

April 10, 1946.

*110No appearance for plaintiff.

Kirlin, Campbell, Hickox & Keating, of New York City, for defendant.

KENNEDY, District Judge.

This is a motion for a bill of particulars. I granted the motion in part namely so far as items 1 to 7 inclusive are concerned, but reserved decision on items 8 to 13. These last all concern themselves with the damages sustained by the plaintiff. It is quite obvious to me that they form no part of a proper bill of particulars, as that expression is used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, I believe I am at liberty to treat the application, so far as these items are concerned, as if defendant had addressed interrogatories to the plaintiff under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 33, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, and plaintiff had filed objections. The demands for information embraced in the items are certainly good as interrogatories, and I would overrule objections to them. Accordingly, I grant the motion in its entirety. Submit order.
#### Tribeca Lending Corp., Respondent, v Linda Crawford, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Submitted January 24, 2011;

decided February 22, 2011

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. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
    <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width" />
    <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
    <title>Accessibility - NIDDK</title>
    
<meta name="VIcurrentDateTime" content="638490787313595655" />
<meta name="VirtualFolder" content="/" />
<script type="text/javascript" src="/layouts/system/VisitorIdentification.js"></script>

</head>
<body>
    <div></div>
</body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

October 3, 2005

Before

Hon. WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

Hon. JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

Hon. DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1431

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

JOHN PENROD,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Southern District of

Illinois.

No. 03 CR 40024

J. Phil Gilbert,

Judge

O R D E R

John Penrod challenged his 384-month total sentence for dealing crack based

on the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005),

contending that the district court committed plain error by applying the sentencing

guidelines in a mandatory fashion. We issued a limited remand pursuant to United

States v. Paladino, 401 F.3d 471, 483-84 (7th Cir. 2005), to allow the district judge an

opportunity to consider whether he would impose the same sentence with the

knowledge that the guidelines are not mandatory.

The district court responded that if given the opportunity it would “reimpose

the same sentence.” Penrod’s sentence is within a properly calculated range under

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 04-1431 Page 2

the guidelines, and is therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Mykytiuk, 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). Penrod argues however, that his

sentence is nonetheless too long because with advancing age (he is 39) and drug

treatment his likelihood of recidivism will decrease. He also contends that 384

months is unreasonable relative to the sentences given to his coconspirators and

relative to defendants who distribute powder cocaine rather than crack. But the

district court was aware of but unmoved by these contentions because of Penrod’s

“horrendous” criminal history and “lack of remorse.” We find that the district court

adequately considered the relevant factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), particularly

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant. Accordingly, the sentence is not unreasonable, and the judgment is

therefore AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 862 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase inpatient hospital 

payments under the Medicare Program to Puerto Rico hospitals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 20, 2005 

Mr. SANTORUM (for himself and Ms. LANDRIEU) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to increase 

inpatient hospital payments under the Medicare Program 

to Puerto Rico hospitals. 

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 ‘‘Puerto Rico Medicare 

5 Reimbursement Equity Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF MEDICARE INPATIENT HOS7 PITAL PAYMENT RATE FOR PUERTO RICO 

8 HOSPITALS. 

9 Section 1886(d)(9)(E) of the Social Security Act (42 

10 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(9)(E)) is amended— 
2 

•S 862 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (iii); 

2 (2) in clause (iv), by inserting ‘‘and before Oc3 tober 1, 2005,’’ after ‘‘2004,’’ and by striking the 

4 period at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (3) by adding at the end the following new 

6 clause: 

7 ‘‘(v) on or after October 1, 2005, the applicable 

8 Puerto Rico percentage is 0 percent and the applica9 ble Federal percentage is 100 percent.’’. 

Æ
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

          - [Docket Nos. ER06-615-000; ER07-1257-000; ER08-1178-000; EL08-88-000] 

                    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives notice that on May 15, 2009, members of its staff will attend a California Independent System Operator (CAISO) stakeholder conference call on Exceptional Dispatch. The agenda and other documents for the teleconference are available on the CAISO's Web site,                     *http://www.caiso.com.*

Sponsored by the CAISO, the teleconference is open to all market participants, and Commission staff's attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts. The teleconference may discuss matters at issue in the above captioned dockets. 

                    For further information, contact Saeed Farrokhpay at                     *saeed.farrokhpay@ferc.gov*; (916) 294-0322 or Maury Kruth at                     *maury.kruth@ferc.gov*, (916) 294-0275.                 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E9-11798 Filed 5-20-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CHRISTOPHER LEON JONES, SR.,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D24-262 April 12, 2024 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Michelle Sisco, Judge. Christopher Leon Jones, Sr., pro se. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. CASANUEVA, ATKINSON, and SMITH, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
May 17, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

_______________



### m 04-20107

_______________



### K ATHERINE 

### E. H AMMOND 

### ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS



### J O 

### A NNE 

### B. B ARNHART 

### , C OMMISSIONER OF THE S OCIAL S ECURITY A DMINISTRATION , 

### Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas


### m H-02-CV-4171

______________________________

On Petition for Rehearing

Before D AVIS , S MITH , and D E M OSS , Circuit Judges.

P ER C URIAM :

IT IS O RDERED that the peti ti on for rehearing is DENIED. We do, however, elect to comment on two points raised in the petition. I n her petition for rehearing, Hammond
argu es that I

stre v. Apfel
, 208 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2000), stands for the proposition that the good cause requirement applies only to cases brought under sent ence (6) of § 405(g), in which new evide nce is presented for the first time in t he district court. Although that ha ppens to be the procedural posture of this
case, we do not read the important holding of the opinion in that way. Instead, I stre holds that there are no permissible bases for remand2

ot her than under sentences (4) and (6) of § 405(g). The district court did not remand here, so Istre is inapplicable. In other words, Istre concerned the circumstances under which

a case may be remanded, n ot the circumstances under which it must be remanded.

Also in he r petition for rehearing, H ammond argues that “new evide nce

su bmit ted to the Appeals Council justifies reversal.” Hammo nd indeed introduces evidence that would have been material, had the date of the hearing been later . We, however, cannot deem evidence material insofar as it details the alleged worsening of a claimant’s condition after the date of the hearing. This is not to say that we cannot consider
any evidence post-dati n g a hearing, but that medical evidence must shed light on the

seve rit y of a claimant’s medical condition before the hearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 20, 2019

No. 04-18-00014-CV

Virginia BRETADO,

Appellant

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-09066

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice (recused)

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant’s motion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on this 20th day of March, 2019.

PER CURIAM 

 ATTESTED TO: ____________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 10.8

                            SHARES FOR DEBT AGREEMENT

      This Shares For Debt Agreement (the  "Agreement") is made and entered into
as of June 22, 2004, by and between  Innovative  Card  Technologies,  a Delaware
corporation, (the "Company") and Luc Berthoud (the "Creditor") with reference to
the following facts:

                                    RECITALS

      WHEREAS,  the Company desires to pay Creditor amounts due for a portion of
the  outstanding  services  provided  to the Company as of March 31, 2004 in the
amount of $65,000 (the "Outstanding Debt"); and

      WHEREAS,  the Company has agreed to issue and the  Creditor  has agreed to
accept preferred shares of the Company's Series A Convertible Preferred Stock as
full and complete settlement of the Outstanding Debt.

      NOW  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the mutual  covenants  and promises
contained herein, and for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which  are  hereby  mutually   acknowledged,   the  parties  to  this  Agreement
(collectively "parties" and individually a "party") agree as follows:

                                    AGREEMENT

      1.    The Company agrees to issue and the Creditor  agrees to accept sixty
            five thousand  (65,000) shares of the Company's Series A Convertible
            Preferred  Stock at a deemed price of $1.00 per share as payment for
            the Outstanding  Debt (the "Debt Shares").  The Debt Shares shall be
            issued to in the name of Luc Berthoud.

      2.    The parties shall hereafter execute all documents and do all that is
            necessary,  convenient or desirable in the reasonable opinion of the
            other party to effect the provisions of this Agreement.

      3.    For the  convenience of the parties,  this Agreement may be executed
            by facsimile  signatures  and in  counterparts  that shall  together
            constitute  the  agreement  of the  parties  as  one  and  the  same
            instrument.  It is the  intent  of the  parties  that a copy of this
            Agreement  signed by any party  shall be fully  enforceable  against
            that party.

<PAGE>

               IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

INNOVATIVE CARD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
a Delaware corporation


BY: _________/S/ ALAN FINKELSTEIN_______________________
               Alan Finkelstein
               Chief Executive Officer




__________/s/ Luc Berthoud__________________________
Name: Luc Berthoud