alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I, CATHY S. LUSK, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals

District of the State of Texas, do hereby certify that Gregory P. Hatzis, Plaintiff in the trial court

secured an extension of ninety-two (92) days in which to file Appellee’s Brief in the following

numbered and entitled cause:

Ex Parte Gregory P. Hatzis

No. 12-14-00199-CV 

This certificate is made pursuant to Tex. Rev. Civ. State. Ann. art. 5069, 1.05 sec. 3(c)

(Vernon Supp. 1985) to assist the Clerk of the Trial Court in calculating the amount of postjudgment interest accrued.

WITNESS MY HAND and seal of said Court at Tyler, Texas, this 10th day of July 2015,

A.D.

Respectfully yours,

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: ______________________________

 Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY






Fourth Court of Appeals 

 NOTIFICATION OF LATE RECORD

Court of Appeals No., if known:

Trial Court Style:

Trial Court No.:

I am the official responsible for preparing the clerk’s record/reporter’s record [circle one] in the abovereferenced appeal. The approximate date of trial was:

The record was originally due:

I anticipate the length of the record to be:

I am unable to file the record by the date such record is due because [check one]:

the appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, and the appellant has failed to pay the

fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing such record.

my other duties or activities preclude working on the record and include the following [attach

additional pagesif needed]:

Other. Explain [attach additional pages if needed]:

I anticipate the record will be completed by:

I, as the undersigned court official, certifythat a copyofthisNotification of LateRecord has been served by first class

mail of fax to the partiesto the judgment or order being appealed.

Date: Signature:

Printed

Name:

Title:

Rev. 1.8.14

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 07/10/2015 1:38:12 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6314

STEVEN LAMONTE STANLEY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

MR. R. HUDGINS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00152-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: October 21, 2022 Decided: October 27, 2022

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Lamonte Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Steven Lamonte Stanley, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which he sought to challenge his

conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Pursuant to

§ 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his conviction and sentence in a traditional writ of 

habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or ineffective to test 

the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined that Stanley may 

not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241 petition, as the 

conduct for which he was convicted remains criminal,1 In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 

(4th Cir. 2000), and he failed to identify a retroactive change in the substantive law 

affecting his sentence,2 United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429 (4th Cir. 2018). 

Accordingly, while we grant Stanley’s motion to amend his informal brief, we affirm the 

district court’s order. Stanley v. Hudgins, No. 1:19-cv-00152-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 

22, 2022). 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

1 See United States v. Runyon, 994 F.3d 192, 201 (4th Cir. 2021).

2 See Jones v. Zych, 812 F. App’x 115, 124 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 15-7399) (argued 

but unpublished); United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d 65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005).

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6314 Doc: 13 Filed: 10/27/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
JAMES LINDSEY HOWZE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D14-4480

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 6, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Suwannee County.

Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

James Lindsey Howze, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jay Kubica, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PADOVANO, CLARK, and MARSTILLER, JJ.,CONCUR.
EXHIBIT 12



Apogent Technologies Inc.

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

December 31, 2002

|                                          |  | Fiscal Year Ended September 30, |         | Three Months Ended December 31, 2002
|----------------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------- | ------- | ------------------------------------
|                                          |  | 1997                            |         | 1998                                
|Fixed Charges:                            |  |                                 |         |                                     
|Interest expense                          |  | $                               | 24,999  |                                     
|Deferred financing                        |  |                                 | 152     |                                     
|1 / 3 Rental expense                      |  |                                 | 1,076   |                                     
|                                          |  |                                 |         |                                     
|                                          |  | $                               | 26,227  |                                     
|Earnings:                                 |  |                                 |         |                                     
|Pre tax income from continuing operations |  | $                               | 73,996  |                                     
|Add: Fixed charges                        |  |                                 | 26,227  |                                     
|Earnings                                  |  |                                 | 100,223 |                                     
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges        |  |                                 | 3.8     |                                     
|                                          |  |                                 |         |                                     
|Rental Expense                            |  | $                               | 3,229   |                                     
|                                          |  |                                 |         |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6316

JACOB LEON MITCHELL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus S. K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CA-05-24-1) Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: June 30, 2005 Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacob Leon Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jacob Leon Mitchell, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) for failure to exhaust state remedies. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mitchell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 20, 2022.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1215

Lower Tribunal No. 18-32001

________________

Dailany A. Pena,

Appellant,

vs.

Kenya Williams, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. 

Lopez, Judge.

Jose Menendez, P.A., and Jose M. Menendez; Ralph O. Anderson 

P.A., and Ralph O. Anderson (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Banker Lopez Gassler P.A., and Sarah Lahlou-Amine (Tampa), for 

appellees.

Before HENDON, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Affirmed. See Sanislo v. Give Kids the World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256, 

260–61 (Fla. 2015) (“Exculpatory clauses are unambiguous and enforceable 

where the intention to be relieved from liability was made clear and 

unequivocal and the wording was so clear and understandable that an 

ordinary and knowledgeable person will know what he or she is contracting 

away.”).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            1323
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   635185
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                637722
<PP&E>                                        26055926
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                28308652
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4095403
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    24106344
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  28308652
<SALES>                                         228480
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                338675
<CGS>                                            91233
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    33976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 86637
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 126829
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             126829
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    126829
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.28
        

</TABLE>
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00008

- CV
In the Interest of A.T.M., G.B., and P.F.L., children
On Appeal from the 377th District Court of Victoria County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19

- 03

- 84224

- D

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, hav ing considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed as modified

. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

. No c osts are assessed , due to appellant s ’ inability to pay cost s. We further order th is decision certified below for observance. June 24, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
YEAR ENDED OCTOBER 31,1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                       7,465,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,515,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  2,935,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               514,000
<PP&E>                                       5,071,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,348,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,513,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,804,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,287,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,348,000
<SALES>                                     14,591,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            14,891,000
<CGS>                                       10,973,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,897,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (710,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,006,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,047,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (8,959,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,959,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.16)
        

</TABLE>
Jamar Osborne

5105 Vandelia Apt. E

Dallas, TX 75235

osbrll7@aol.com

July 7,2015

Third Court ofAppeals

PO Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711

Court Clerk,

Under the Texas Public Information Act, §6252-17a et seq., I am requesting an opportunity to obtain

electronic copies of all documents received from the District Court in case number D-l-GN-14-004694

(Osborne v. Paxton).

Ifthere are any fees for searching or copying these records, please inform me ifthe cost will exceed

$5.00. However, I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure ofthe requested

information is in the public interest and will contribute significantly to the public's interest of

transparency. This information is not being sought for commercial purposes.

The Texas Public Information Act requires that you "promptly produce" the requested records unless,

within 10 days, you have sought an Attorney General's Opinion. If you expect a significant delay in

responding to this request, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the

ability to inspect the requested records.

Ifyou deny any or all ofthis request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to

release the information and notify me ofthe appeal procedures available to me under the law.

Sincerely,

farnar Osborne / RECEIVED

JUL 1 0 2015

MRDCCURTOF/Scpci.c
&*m
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 International Packaging and Logistics Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10Q for the period ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Westlund, Chief Executive 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/  Steve Westlund


Steve Westlund


Chief Executive Officer, President


and Director





November 19, 2010
S. 3473 

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten 

An Act 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to authorize advances from Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADVANCES FROM OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND FOR 

DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL. 

Section 6002(b) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 

2752) is amended in the second sentence— 

(1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘Coast Guard’’; and 

(2) by inserting before the period at the end the following: 

‘‘and (2) in the case of the discharge of oil that began in 

2010 in connection with the explosion on, and sinking of, the 

mobile offshore drilling unit Deepwater Horizon, may, without 

further appropriation, obtain 1 or more advances from the 

Fund as needed, up to a maximum of $100,000,000 for each 

advance, with the total amount of all advances not to exceed 

the amounts available under section 9509(c)(2) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986, and within 7 days of each advance, 

shall notify Congress of the amount advanced and the facts 

and circumstances necessitating the advance’’. 

SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying 

with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall be determined 

by reference to the latest statement titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of 

PAYGO Legislation’’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the 
S. 3473—2 

Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, provided that such statement has been submitted prior 

to the vote on passage. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
COL_Exhibit_10-s-1_6.30.2013






Exhibit 10-s-1


Rockwell Collins, Inc.
Non-Employee Director Compensation Summary
Effective April 17, 2013


Initial Election to Board
		
	•
	Granted restricted stock units under our 2006 Long-Term Incentives Plan (the “Plan”) with a value equal to 


		
	◦
	$100,000 plus 


		
	◦
	$110,000 multiplied by a fraction where the numerator is the number of days until the next Annual Meeting of Shareowners and the denominator is 365.


Annual Retainer
		
	•
	$100,000 payable in equal quarterly installments at the beginning of each quarter.


Annual Equity Grant
		
	•
	At each Annual Meeting of Shareowners, granted restricted stock units under the Plan with a value of $110,000.


Annual Committee Chair Fees
		
	•
	Audit - $20,000


		
	•
	Compensation - $15,000


		
	•
	Nominating and Governance - $10,000


		
	•
	Technology - $10,000


		
	•
	All chair fees are payable in equal quarterly installments at the beginning of each quarter.


Annual Lead Independent Fee
		
	•
	$20,000, payable in equal quarterly installments at the beginning of each quarter.


Annual Audit Committee Fees
		
	•
	Each Audit Committee member, other than the Chair, receives $5,000, which is payable in equal quarterly installments at the beginning of each quarter.


Annual Deferral Opportunity
		
	•
	Prior to the start of each calendar year, a non-employee director may elect to defer all or a portion of his or her cash fees by electing to receive restricted stock units in lieu thereof.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000           
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          21,792
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  176,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,644
<INVENTORY>                                    155,963
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               392,712
<PP&E>                                         194,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                 161,317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,327,780
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          142,187
<BONDS>                                        701,254
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           974
<OTHER-SE>                                     422,250
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,327,780
<SALES>                                        436,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               436,191
<CGS>                                          214,073
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,215
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   210
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,168
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 73,525
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,434
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,091    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .46<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44<F1>
<FN>
<F1>As adjusted for the two-for-one stock split effective February 20, 1998.
Prior Financial Data Schedules other than that for the period ended December
31, 1997 have not been restated to reflect the stock split.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>