alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00193

- CV

EDNA CORTEZ F/K/A EDNA CHAPA

v. DAVID CHAPA
On Appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County , Texas Trial Cause No. 2007

- 10

- 004974

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion . Cost s of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. January 14, 2021
**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 Kaire Holdings, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randall Jones, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350,
      as
      adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
      best
      of the undersigned’s knowledge and belief:





(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.








/s/
      Randall Jones


Randall
      Jones


Chief
      Financial Officer


August
      15, 2005
Cite as 2023 Ark. 5



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

IN RE ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF LAW EXAMINERS Opinion Delivered : January 26, 2023

PER CURIAM

Allison Plowman Hatfield of Little Rock is appointed to the Arkansas State Board of

Law Examiners for a six

-

year term concluding on January 26 , 202 9 . M s. Hatfield will be a n

at - large representative ; she replaces Judge Waymond Brown

, whose term has concluded.

The c ourt extends its sincere appre ciation to M s. Hatfield for accepting appointment

to this important b oard. The c ourt also expresses its gratitude to Judge Brown for his

dedicated service to the b oard

.
Exhibit 10.3 - Declaration of Trust for Glengarry Developments Inc.





Exhibit 10.3

GLENGARRY DEVELOPMENTS INC.

2202 - 717 Jervis Street

Vancouver, British Columbia

Canada V6E 4L5

 

May 31, 2007

Marathon Gold Corp.

6338 North New Braunfels Avenue

Suite 350 

San Antonio, Texas 78209

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

RE: Declaration of Trust

     Glengarry Developments Inc. holds in trust for Marathon Gold Corp., a 100% undivided interest in the following claim:


	Claim  	Number of Units  	Record Number  	Expiration Date  
	PT1  	1  	520335  	September 22, 2008  




     Glengarry Developments Inc. will deliver full title on demand to Marathon Gold Corp. for as long as the claims are in good standing with the Province of British Columbia.

Yours truly,



GLENGARRY DEVELOPMENTS INC.

BY:   GARY MACDONALD

         Gary MacDonald, President
#### Office of Disciplinary Counsel *v.*Camera.

[Cite as *Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera*(1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 1222.]

(No. 93-2180

Submitted April 16, 1997

Decided April 29, 1997.)

On Petition for Reinstatement.

This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of a petition for reinstatement by respondent, Michael J. Camera, a.k.a. Michael James Camera. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(10)(F), respondent’s petition for reinstatement was referred to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline filed its Final Report in this court on February 27, 1997, recommending that Michael J. Camera, a.k.a. Michael James Camera, be reinstated to the practice of law in the state of Ohio. No objections to said Final Report were filed.

The court now considers its order of March 23, 1994, indefinitely suspending respondent, Michael J. Camera, a.k.a. Michael James Camera, from the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(6)(B)(2). On consideration thereof and the Final Report of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the respondent, Michael J. Camera, a.k.a. Michael James Camera, Attorney Registration No. 0000476, last known address in Lorain, Ohio, be, and hereby is, reinstated to the practice of law in Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that respondent be taxed the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $448.60, less the deposit of $500, for a total overage of $51.40, which overage shall be refunded to respondent.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1), that publication be made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(2), and that respondent bear the costs of publication.

For earlier case, see *Disciplinary Counsel v. Camera*(1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 478, 628 N.E.2d 1353.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
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 quarterly report of Synergx Systems Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel
S. Tamkin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, John A. Poserina,
Chief Financial 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, to my
knowledge, 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/ Daniel S. Tamkin
                                                   Daniel S. Tamkin
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   Synergx Systems Inc.
                                                   August 12, 2005



                                                   /S/ John A Poserina
                                                   John A, Poserina
                                                   Chief Financial  Officer
                                                   Synergx Systems Inc.
                                                   August 12, 2005
EXHIBIT 21.1

                      Subsidiaries of COMFORCE Corporation

The  following  is a  complete  list  of  all of the  subsidiaries  of  COMFORCE
Corporation with jurisdiction of incorporation indicated thereby.

1.   COMFORCE Operating, Inc. (Delaware)
2.   COMFORCE Technical Services, Inc. (Delaware)
3.   COMFORCE Telecom, Inc. (Delaware)
4.   SUMTEC Corporation (Delaware)
5.   Uniforce Services, Inc. (New York)
6.   PrO Unlimited, Inc. (New York)
7.   Uniforce Staffing Services, Inc. (New York)
8.   USSI-NE Corp. (New York)
9.   Uniforce Payrolling Services, Inc. (New York)
10.  UTS of Delaware, Inc. (Delaware)
11.  LabForce of America, Inc. (New York)
12.  Uniforce MIS Services of Georgia, Inc. (Georgia)
13.  Uniforce Information Services of Texas, Inc. (New York)
14.  Temporary Help Industry Servicing Co., Inc. (New York)
15.  Staffing Industry Funding & Support, Inc. (New York)
16.  Professional Staffing Funding & Support, Inc. (New York)
17.  Brentwood Service Group, Inc. (New York)
18.  Computer Consultants Funding & Support, Inc. (New York)
19.  Thisco of Canada, Inc. (New York)
20.  Camelot Consulting Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
21.  Camelot Communications Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
22.  Camelot Control Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
23.  Camelot Group, Inc. (New Jersey)
24.  PrO Services, Inc. (Delaware)
25.  PrO Unlimited Services, Inc. (Delaware)
26.  COMFORCE Technical Administrative Services, Inc. (New York)
27.  Uniforce Payrolling Tri-State, Inc.  (New York)




                                      E-6
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 dated October 14, 1988 and
Form S-8 dated December 28, 1994) pertaining to the 1988 Incentive Stock Option Plan and the 1994 Incentive Stock Option Plan of K2 Inc. of our report dated
February 15, 2002, except for Note 6 which is March 28, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of K2 Inc. included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-4 dated
August 9, 1999) of K2 Inc. and in the related Proxy Statement of our report dated February 15, 2002, except for Note 6 which is March 28, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of K2 Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

Our
audits also include the financial statement schedule of K2 Inc. listed in Item 14(a). This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to
express an opinion based on our audits. In our opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, presents
fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

| |  | logo
| |  | ----

Los
Angeles, California
March 28, 2002

---

QuickLinks
***NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION***

***MICS CLASS II - AUDIT CHECKLIST***

***PATRON DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS & CASHLESS SYSTEMS (PDA)***

Page 5 of 5
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

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

ROBERT SILLEN; et al.,

 Defendants,

 and

S. KAUR; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 12-15235

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-01255-LJO-DLB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 15, 2013** 

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

FILED

JAN 17 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-15235

California state prisoner Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr., appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.

2003) (dismissal for failure to exhaust); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193,

1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Brummett’s claims against defendants

McGuinness and Doe 2 because Brummett failed adequately to allege that those

defendants intentionally delayed his access to pain medication or consciously

disregarded the risk posed by such a delay. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051,

1057, 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) (a prison official is deliberately indifferent only if he or

she knows of and disregards an excessive risk to an inmate’s health and safety, and

a showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish an

Eighth Amendment violation); Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)

(“Liability under [§] 1983 arises only upon a showing of personal participation by

the defendant. A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of . . .

subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of

the violations and failed to act to prevent them.” (citations omitted)).
3 12-15235

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Brummett’s claim

against defendant Kaur because Brummett failed to exhaust administrative

remedies with respect to that claim before filing his third amended complaint. See

McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (requiring

dismissal without prejudice where a prisoner “did not exhaust his administrative

remedies prior to filing suit but is in the process of doing so when a motion to

dismiss is filed”); cf. Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2010)

(holding that exhaustion requirement is satisfied so long as prisoner exhausted his

administrative remedies with respect to new claims asserted in an amended

complaint before filing that complaint).

AFFIRMED.
{"agency":"NIGC","generated":"2015-08-03 11:39:28","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"}],"value":"2015"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q3"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"6"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["NIGC"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["15"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["14"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["10"]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2015","quarter":"Q3"}
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00366-CV

Vonda L. COLLIER,

Appellant

v.

Hayward COLLIER,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV04756

Honorable J. Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: March 9, 2022

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On February 1, 2022, we ordered appellant to file her brief and to show cause in writing 

by February 16, 2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(a); see also id. R. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant fails to 

comply with court order). Appellant did not respond to this court’s order, and, to date, appellant 

has not filed a brief. Because appellant failed to timely file a brief in this appeal, this appeal is 

dismissed for want of prosecution. See id. R. 38.8(a), 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
#### Watson and another *v.*Smith and another.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

May 9, 1881.)

1. Infringement—License—Proof.

In a suit for infringement, the allegation of a license is an afflrma< tive defence, and must be made out by the proof.—[Ed.

In Equity.

*351Wheeler, D. J.

This suit is brought upon letters patent No. 68,656, dated September 10, 1867, and issued to Oliver Salgee for improvements in hose couplings, and owned by the plaintiffs. Manufacture and sale of the patented devices are admitted; the only defence made is that what was done, was, as is claimed, done under a license. This is an affirmative defence, to he made out by proof. That part of the answer setting it up is mere pleading, and not evidence. After careful examination of the proofs it does not appear, by any fair preponderance of evidence, that the parties mutually understood and agreed that the defendants might make use of the patented invention, nor that the plaintiffs gave them warrantably to understand that they might, on which understanding they acted. What they did appears to be a wrongful infringement instead of a matter of contract.

Let there *he*a decree for an injunction and an account, with costs.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Patrick W. Hurley, Chief Financial Officer of Sport-Haley, Inc., certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Sport-Haley, Inc.;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
September 29, 2003

|/s/PATRICK W. HURLEYPatrick W. Hurley
Chief Financial Officer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

---

QuickLinks
96-2353.

#### Cooper v. Tracy.

Board of Tax Appeals, No. 95-A-220. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. Upon consideration of appellant’s application for dismissal,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the application for dismissal be, and hereby is, granted.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------


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

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

The undersigned hereby certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that,  to their
knowledge,  the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  December
28, 2002 of Innovative  Micro  Technology,  Inc. (the "Company")  fully complies
with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information  contained in such periodic report
fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and results
of  operations  of the  Company as of, and for,  the periods  presented  in such
report.

Very truly yours,



John S. Foster

/s/ John S. Foster
__________________
Chief Executive Officer





Peter T. Altavilla

/s/ Peter T. Altavilla
______________________
Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  January 13, 2003
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



                        Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
COMFORCE Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-3 (Registration Nos. 033-60403, 333-31167, 333-43321, 333-44351, 333-47941,
333-61789, 333-74689, 333-82201 and 333-52356) and Form S-8 (Registration Nos.
333-32271, 333-46787, 333-82199 and 333-56962) of COMFORCE Corporation and
subsidiaries of our report dated February 27, 2001, except as to note 18, which
is as of March 6, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of COMFORCE
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows and
the related schedule for each of the years in the two-year period ended December
31, 2000, which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form
10-K of COMFORCE Corporation.


                              /s/ KPMG LLP

                              KPMG LLP


Melville, New York
March 22, 2001
#### Larry RUTHER, Appellant v. AUTO NATION INC., Appellee.

No. 06-7099.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Oct. 19, 2006.

Larry Ruther, Manassas, VA, pro se.

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 340). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s orders filed May 9, 2006, and May 30, 2006, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration of that order.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.