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

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 12, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00844

- CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC. , Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Houston Forward

Times

, Appellant s

v.

HOUSECANARY, INC. f/k/a Canary A nalytics, Inc., Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI06300 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appeal number 04

- 18

- 00509

- CV is an appeal of an order signed by the trial court on July 3, 2018, in which the trial court granted HouseCanary Analytics Inc. ’s motion to reconsider whether to seal certain exhibits. The appeal was set at issue on November 26, 2018, and originally set for oral argument submission on February 14, 2019. The appellant’s unopposed

motion to reschedule oral argument was granted, an d the appeal is set for oral argument submission on April 29, 2019.

Appeal number 04

- 18

- 00844

- CV is an appeal of an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Alter or Partially Vacate the July 3, 2018 Sealing Order as to Exhibits that HouseCanary Filed Publicly

on July 11, 2018 and an Order on Media Intervenor’s Motion to Modify and/or Clarify the July 3, 2018 Sealing Order. Both orders were signed by the trial court on October 25, 2018 , and the notices of appeal were filed on November 7, 2018, and November 13, 201 8. The appeal was set

at issue on March 8 , 2019.

Because the issues presented in both appeals will involve an analysis of the law governing sealing order s and the issues arise from the same factual background, the court is considering consolidating the two appeals. Under the proposed consolidation, t he records and

briefs for the two appeals shall remain separated ; however: (1) the same panel will be assigned to both appeals; (2) b oth appeals will be argued together ; and (3) t he court will dispose of bot h appeals with the same judgment, opinion, and mandate. It is therefore ORDERED that any objection to the proposed consolidation must be filed in this court no later than March 22, 2019.It is FURTHER ORDERED that if an objection is filed, any response t o such objection must be filed in this court no later than March 29, 2019.

I t is so ORDER E D on this 12 th day of March, 2019.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

, Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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.

 December 16, 2020

p1215

Order 

Clerk

December 16, 2020

162164 & (20)(22)

SUBHASH KAPUR, Trustee of the SUBHASH

KAPUR LIVING TRUST,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 162164

COA: 353956

Oakland CC: 2019-178445-AV

ROBERT SHUMAKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration are GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the October 22, 2020 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented 

should be reviewed by this Court. The request for a stay is DENIED.
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 23(i)

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement, Forms S-3, No. 333-26769, of Medicore, Inc. and in the related
Prospectus of our report dated March 25, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and schedule of Medicore, Inc. included
in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                By /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

                                ERNST & YOUNG, LLP

March 27, 1998
Miami, Florida
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

NO. 03-21-00571-CV

Texas Department of State Health Services, and Dr. Jennifer A. Shuford, in her Official 

Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Appellants

v.

Sky Marketing Corp., d/b/a Hometown Hero; Create A Cig Temple, LLC; Darrell Surif; 

and David Walden, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEOFANIS

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the interlocutory orders signed by the trial court on November 8, 2021. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no 

reversible error in the trial court’s interlocutory orders. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial 

court’s interlocutory orders. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and in the court below.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6244

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RASHAUN ALLEN JUDGE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:17-cr-00301-RMG-1)

Submitted: August 29, 2023 Decided: September 1, 2023

Before KING, AGEE, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rashaun Allen Judge, Appellant Pro Se. Emily Evans Limehouse, OFFICE OF THE 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6244 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Rashaun Allen Judge appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for compassionate release. We review a district court’s denial of 

a compassionate release motion for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble, 992 F.3d 

326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and conclude that the court did not 

abuse its discretion and sufficiently explained the reasons for the denial. See United 

States v. High, 997 F.3d 181, 188-91 (4th Cir. 2021) (discussing amount of explanation 

required for denial of compassionate release motion). Accordingly, we affirm the district 

court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6244 Doc: 11 Filed: 09/01/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 19, 2010

jam 

# Order

October 19, 2010

141920 (23)

LONNER MELTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 141920
COA: 297601 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________ ________________

On order of the Chief Ju stice, the motion to waive f ees is considered and it
is DENIED because MCL 600.2 963 requires that a prisone r pursuing a civil action be liable for filing fees. Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $3.00, shall submit a copy of this order with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned
with this order. Failure to comply with this orde r shall result in the appeal not being
filed in this Court. If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of the deposits made to plain tiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of $372.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full.
The Clerk of the Court sh all furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3403 

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 to exempt 

subsistence users in the State of Alaska from the prohibition on taking. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 24, 2010 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To amend the Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978 

to exempt subsistence users in the State of Alaska from 

the prohibition on taking. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FOR SUBSISTENCE USERS. 

4 Section 3(h)(2) of the Fish and Wildlife Improvement 

5 Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 712(1)) is amended by adding 

6 at the end: ‘‘A taking authorized under this section shall 

7 be exempt from the prohibition on taking under section 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3403 IS

1 1 of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp 

2 Act (16 U.S.C. 718a).’’ 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 10.2a



Under  the  Company's  1998  Senior  Management  Variable  Incentive  Plan,  the
President of the Company,  with the approval of the Human Resources Committee of
the Board of Directors,  annually  designates  employees to  participate  in the
program,   establishes  their  participation   level,  and  establishes  certain
financial and operational goals for the Company which must be satisfied in order
for  variable  pay awards to be made.  The impact,  if any,  of each  employee's
performance  on  his or her  variable  pay  award  is  determined  by his or her
officer. Subject to final approval by the Human Resources Committee of the Board
of  Directors,  the  President  of the Company also  determines  at year-end the
degree to which those goals have been  satisfied  and the amount of variable pay
to be awarded to participating employees, if any.
#### HSBC Bank USA, N.A., as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Renaissance Equity Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-3, Respondent, v Joaquin Arias et al., Appellants.

[977 NYS2d 323]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered March 30, 2012, as denied, in effect, as premature, their renewed cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Asia Garcia and David A. Bythewood.

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

On July 8, 2009, the plaintiff commenced this foreclosure ac*786tion and subsequently moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint. The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Asia Garcia. The Supreme Court found unresolved factual issues and denied both the motion and cross motion without prejudice to renewal upon the completion of discovery. Thereafter, prior to the completion of discovery, the defendants renewed their prior cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against Garcia and the defendant David A. Bythewood. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the renewed cross motion (hereinafter the defendants’ motion), as premature.

The Supreme Court properly denied, in effect, as premature, the defendants’ motion. “A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the opposing party’s position may exist but cannot then be stated” *(Matter of Fasciglione,*73 AD3d 769, 770 [2010]; *see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Chmelovsky v Country Club Homes, Inc.,*106 AD3d 684 [2013]; *Gregorian v New York Life Ins. Co.,*90 AD3d 837, 839 [2011]). Here, the parties failed to comply with the court’s prior order insofar as they did not complete discovery. Contrary to the defendants’ contention that none of the parties sought further discovery, they themselves filed a notice of discovery and inspection after the court’s prior order. Furthermore, the defendants argued in their motion that the plaintiff failed to come forward with certain documents. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion, in effect, as premature, without prejudice to renewal *(see Matter of Fasciglione,*73 AD3d at 770).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01



                        OAK TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                        (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                     (UNAUDITED)


                                    Three Months Ended    Nine Months Ended
                                       March 31,              March 31,
                                    ------------------    ------------------
                                      1997      1996        1997      1996
                                    --------  --------    --------   -------
Statement of operations data:
  Net income.......................  $  9,540 $ 22,183    $ 21,075   $ 53,633
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------

Weighted average number of common
  and dilutive common equivalent
  shares used in computations:
     Common stock..................    40,532   39,166      40,469     39,010
     Stock options and other
       common stock equivalents....     2,269    3,589       2,161      3,707
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------
Shares used in computing net income
    per share......................    42,801   42,755      42,630     42,717
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------
Net income per share (1)............ $   0.22 $   0.52    $   0.49   $  1.26
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------
                                     -------- --------    --------   --------

(1) The difference between the primary and fully diluted shares used in
computing net income per share is not material.
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350

CERTIFICATION



The undersigned officer hereby certifies that,
to his knowledge, (1) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of COMFORCE Corporation for the year ended December 26, 2004 as to which this Certification is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and (2) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of COMFORCE Corporation.



Signed March 24, 2005.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ John C. Fanning                 
|John C. Fanning,                    
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



E-8
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                 412,062
<SECURITIES>                            0 
<RECEIVABLES>                           1,150
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        413,212
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          413,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   4,450
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                                11,100,000
<OTHER-SE>                              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            413,212
<SALES>                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        4,637
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           1,246
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         0
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     0
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            3,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        




</TABLE>
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 # 11772 and # 11773]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Florida (FEMA—1840—DR), dated 06/04/2009. *Incident:*
                         Severe storms, flooding, tornadoes, and straight-line winds. *Incident Period:*
                         05/17/2009 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         06/04/2009. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         08/03/2009. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         03/04/2010.
 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: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 06/04/2009, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: Primary Counties: Baker, Clay, Flagler, Putnam, Volusia. *The Interest Rates are:* PercentOther (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere
4.500Businesses And Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 117726 and for economic injury is 117736. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. E9-13828 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 3.4
 AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS
OF
AMERICAN LOCKER GROUP INCORPORATED (the  Bylaws )
 (as of March 27, 2008)
 (a Delaware Corporation)
 ARTICLE I  STOCKHOLDERS
 Annual Meeting Stockholders Corporation Director Board
 Special Meetings
 Notice of Meetings
 Time DGCL
 Adjournment
 Quorum
 Majority of Stockholders Constitutes Quorum
 Lack of Quorum




---



##### 



Organization
 Conduct of Business
 Proxies and Voting
 Person or Proxy
 One Vote
 Voice or Ballot
 Determined by Plurality
 Stock List
 2




---



##### 



Consent of Stockholders in Lieu of Meeting
 ARTICLE II  BOARD OF DIRECTORS
 Number and Term of Office
 Number of Directors Article II(1)(a)
 Increase in Directors
 Resignation or Removal
 Resignation
 Removal
 Vacancies and New Directorships
 3




---



##### 



Regular Meetings
 Special Meetings
 Business of the Corporation
 Annual Statement
 Quorum
 Participation in Meetings by Conference Telephone or other Communications
Equipment
 Written Consent in Lieu of Meeting
 Powers
 4




---



##### 



Compensation of Directors
 Indemnification of Officers and Directors Article II(13) Article II(13)
 ARTICLE III  COMMITTEES
 Committees of the Board of Directors
 Conduct of Business
 5




---



##### 



ARTICLE IV  OFFICERS
 Generally
 Chairman of the Board Chairman ex officio
 Vice Chairman
 Chief Executive Officer
 President
 Vice Presidents
 6




---



##### 



Treasurer and Assistant Treasurers
 Secretary and Assistant Secretaries
 Delegation of Authority
 Removal
 Action with Respect to Securities of Other Corporations
 ARTICLE V  STOCK
 Certificates of Stock
 Transfers of Stock Article V(4)
 7




---



##### 



Record Date
 For Notice
 For Consent
 For Exercise of Rights
 Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Certificates
 Regulations
 ARTICLE VI  NOTICES
 Notices
 8




---



##### 



prima facie
 Waivers
 ARTICLE VII  MISCELLANEOUS
 Registered Office and Agent
 Principal Office
 Other Offices
 Dividends
 Signatures
 Corporate Seal
 Checks
 9




---



##### 



Reliance upon Books, Reports and Records
 Fiscal Year
 Time Periods
 Amendments
 Business Combinations with Interested Stockholders
 10
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarterended September 30, 2006 (the “Report”) by Bentley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Registrant”),the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

1.               The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended, and

2.               The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Registrant.

 
|   | /s/ James R. Murphy                                             |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | James R. Murphy                                                 |
|   | Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief  Executive Officer |
|   | (Principal Executive Officer)                                   |
|   |                                                            |
|   | November 8, 2006                                                |

 

----