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

NO. 03

- 22

- 00472

- CV

Howard Bart Freidman , Appellant

v.

Deborah Jenkins , Appellee

FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 22

- 002444 , THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRUM , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM
Appellant Howard Bart Freidman ’ s brief was originally due October 3 , 2022

. After resolving a jurisdictional question, this Court reset the brief due date to November 18,

2 022. This Court granted two extensions of time to file th e brief in part because Freidman
asserted he was seeking to obtain counsel , making the brief due on or before February 2, 2023

.

Fr e i dman has fi led a third motion for extension of t im e in which he asserts that he has obtained

counsel who is becoming fam ili a r with the record
, a process hampered by the wi nter storm of
early February 2023. Appellee Deborah Jenkins oppose s the extension, in part noting that

Freidman did not identif y his new counsel and no new counsel ha s appeared in this appeal.

We grant the m otion and extend the deadline for filing Fr eidman ’ s brief until

March 3, 2023. We cau tion Freidman and any counsel he may retain that no further extensions2 will be granted and that failure to file th e brief timely m ay result in the di smissal of this app e a l
for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 42.3(b).

Order ed on Feb ruary 9 , 2023.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices T riana and Theofanis
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Anner Rivera, Respondent.

Submitted July 29, 2013;

decided August 22, 2013

*1028Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Lynn WL. Fa-hey, Esq., Appellate Advocates, 2 Rector Street, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the respondent on the appeal herein.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 122 (Friday, June 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 30643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15156]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employee Benefits Security Administration

[Application Number D-11552]


Withdrawal of the Notice of Proposed Exemption Involving Barclays 
Bank PLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (Applicants) Located, Respectively, 
in London, England and New York, NY

    In the March 26, 2009 issue of the Federal Register, at 74 FR 
13250, the Department of Labor (the Department) published a notice of 
proposed exemption from the prohibited transaction restrictions of the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended and from 
certain taxes imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The notice 
of proposed exemption, if granted, would have replaced and modified 
exemptive relief, previously provided pursuant to Prohibited 
Transaction Exemption 96-62, for the Applicants' securitization 
activities, which generally permits employee benefit plans to purchase, 
hold, sell or exchange certain securities representing interests in 
asset-backed or mortgage-backed investment pools.
    By e-mail dated June 1, 2009, the Applicants requested that the 
application for exemption be withdrawn.
    Accordingly, the notice of proposed exemption is hereby withdrawn.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of June, 2009.
Ivan L. Strasfeld,
Director, Office of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits 
Security Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-15156 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             119
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,119
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 162,712
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,185
<BONDS>                                        100,010
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       278,532
<OTHER-SE>                                   (248,015)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   162,712
<SALES>                                             80
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    80
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,640
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (50,160)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,160)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  13,068
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (37,092)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00821-CV

GOLDEN REHABILITATION CENTER, L.L.C.,

Appellant

v.

Juanita Perez, Virginia Garcia, Paul Zapata, and Sylvia Sanchez, Individually and as Heirs of 

Juanita PEREZ, Virginia Garcia, Paul Zapata, and Sylvia Sanchez, Individually and as Heirs of 

Elisa Zapata,

Appellees

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

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-06946

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

APPEAL REINSTATED AND DISMISSED; STAY OF TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS 

LIFTED; REMANDED TO TRIAL COURT FOR RENDITION OF JUDGMENT IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH THE PARTIES’ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Appellants and Appellees filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal. The parties advise 

this court they have settled the dispute pertinent to this appeal. The parties request this court

reinstate the appeal from its abatement, lift the stay imposed upon the trial court proceedings and 

dismiss the appeal. 

The motion is granted. Further, pursuant to Texas Appellate Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), we 

remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ 
04-13-00821-CV

- 2 -

settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). Costs of the appeal are taxed against the 

party who incurred them.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 17 CFR 240.13a-14

PROMULGATED UNDER

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Federico Pignatelli, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Biolase, Inc.; and
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report.
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: July 6, 2012



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Federico Pignatelli                                                    
|Federico Pignatelli
Chief Executive Officer
and principal executive officer
# News &amp; Events
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

____________ 

No. 07-9005 

____________ 

JAMES LAMBERT, 

 Appellant 

 v. 

JEFFREY BEARD, COMMISSIONER, PENNSYLVANIA 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WILLIAM STRICKMAN, III, 

SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 

AT GREENE; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF 

PHILADELPHIA; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________ 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

(D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-09034) 

District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson 

____________ 

ORDER 

____________ 

 Appellant James Lambert has been under sentence of death since 1984, during 

which time the case has wended its way through the state and federal courts. On 

September 30, 2010, this Court heard argument on Lambert’s appeal from the District 

Court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, an appeal 

that challenges the District Court’s disposition of the various contentions Lambert raised 

as to both his conviction for first degree murder and the sentence of death imposed 

thereon. 
2

 Unless there is a prior disposition of this case, an Opinion of this Court will issue 

in due course addressing the contentions raised to the conviction itself and whether the 

judgment of the District Court as to the conviction should be affirmed. This Court, 

however, having concluded that, whether reviewed de novo or under AEDPA’s 

deferential standard of review, the District Court erred in finding that there had not been 

a violation of the rule of Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (1988). 

 IT is, therefore, on this 23rd day of November 2010 

 ORDERED that the sentence of death be and hereby is VACATED and, pending 

further order of this Court, any conditions and/or disabilities to which petitioner is being 

subjected because of the sentence of death, including but not limited to, being housed 

other than in the general population, be lifted. 

 /s/ Maryanne Trump Barry 

 Circuit Judge 

Dated: November 23, 2010 

nmr/cc: Thomas W. Dolgenos, Esq. 

 Joshua S. Goldwert, Esq. 

 Stuart B. Lev, Esq. 

 Daniel Silverman, Esq.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 10193 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
DEREK RAY KING , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11

- CR

- 200

- 1

Before DAVIS, HAYNES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Derek Ray King appeals the judgment revoking his second term of supervised release and sentencing him to a 10

- month prison term and a 20

- month term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Pretermitting the question whether the district court i nfringed King’s due process right of confrontation, we affirm on other bases supported by the record. See United States v. Rodriguez , 523 F.3d 519, 525 (5th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Ho , 311

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-10193 Document: 00514816114 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2019No. 18

- 10193

2 F.3d 589, 602 n.12 (5th Cir. 2002) ; United States v. McCormic k , 54 F.3d 214, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 1995). Additionally, w e pretermit deciding the standard of review f or the statutory bases for our decision because we conclude that “the district court’s reasons were sufficient under any standard.” Rodriguez , 523 F.3d a t 525

. First, r evocation and imprisonment were mandatory because King conceded that he had tested positive for illegal substances more than three times in a year’s period. S ee § 3583(g)(4). The record offers no basis for concluding that the district court committed error of any kind in exercising the limited discretion granted by statute to forgo mandatory revocation for defendants on supervised release who fail drug testing. See § 3583(d); see also
United States v. Williams , 847 F.3d 251, 254

- 55 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 192 (2017) ; United States v. Minnitt , 617 F.3d 327, 335

- 36 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Smith , 417 F .3d 483, 486

- 87 (5th Cir. 2005). King ha d been required to participate in substance abuse treatment since at least October 2012 and yet continued his abusive behavior, as shown by testing in April, May, June, and July of 2017. Second, revocation and imprisonment were mandatory because King conc eded that he had violated the condition of his supervised release that he not possess illegal controlled substances. See § 3583(g)(1)

. And to such extent as King may be understood to argue that the district court was influenced in its sentence by the all egations of an addendum to the petition for revocation and the testimony related t o those allegations, i.e., that his due process right of confrontation was infringed with regard to his revocation sentence, he is entitled to no relief. See United States v . Beydoun , 469 F.3d 102, 108 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED. Case: 18-10193 Document: 00514816114 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2019
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,913]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 12, 2009 in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Performance Powder Coatings, LLC, Kokomo, Indiana.

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-15218 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |   |                                                            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 12, 2010 |   |   | /s/ Thomas Sperzel                                              |   |
|                    |   |   | Thomas SperzelSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |   |
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 5, 2013

N o. 04

- 13

- 00032

- CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

Appellant

v.

Jose Luis CHAPA,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- CVK

- 00 0745

- D2

Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee Jose Luis Chapa’s brief was due March 27, 2013. Neither the brief nor a

motion for extension of time was filed.

We order appellee to file his brief by April 15, 2013. If the brief is not filed by the date

ordered, we will order the case submitted without an appellee’s brief.

____________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

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

court on this 5 th day of April, 2013

.

____________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
`
 

 

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 Pet Express Supply, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Renea Yamada, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Diane Egger, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

 

 

/s/ Renea Yamada

     Renea Yamada

     Chief Executive Officer

     May 1, 2008

 

 

/s/ Diane Egger

     Diane Egger

     Chief Financial Officer

     May 1, 2008

 

 

 
`
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

DAVID W. WILSON,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

L. M. ZAFRA; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17632

D.C. No. 2:06-cv-1577-FCD-KJM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 5, 2010** 

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. 

David W. Wilson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

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

and state law violations related to prison officials’ alleged failure to provide mental

FILED

APR 20 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-17632

health care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th

Cir. 2001); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wilson’s deliberate indifference to

medical needs claim because he did not allege that he suffered a sufficiently

serious harm when defendant Nurse Zafra ignored his request to see a psychiatrist

on the weekend. See Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2004). The

district court also properly dismissed Wilson’s remaining claims because they are

vague and conclusory and because Wilson failed to allege how any official

deprived him of his constitutional or other protected rights by affirmative conduct

or through failure to act, as required under Section 1983. See Leer v. Murphy, 844

F.2d 628, 633 (9th 1988). Wilson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

We deny as moot appellee Zafra’s request for judicial notice. 

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Santo Gonzalez, Appellant, v Dominick Venettozzi, as Acting Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

Submitted November 13, 2012;

decided January 8, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*19 NY3d 812 (2012)].
<PAGE>

Exhibit 31.1
Form 10-KSB/A
Cardiff International, Inc.
File No. 000-49709


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Daniel Thompson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Cardiff
International, Inc., certify that:

      1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Cardiff
International, Inc;

      2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

      3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

      4.    The registrant's other certifying officer 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 we have:

      a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

      b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

      c)    disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and

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

      a)    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

      b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

Dated: April 18, 2007                   By: /s/ Daniel Thompson
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer