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

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS 

QUINTON JACKSON '

Appellant 

V. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00036-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 42425-B 

THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Appellee '

SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO FILE APPELLANT=S BRIEF 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

NOW COMES, QUINTON JACKSON, the Appellant herein, and moves the Court for an 

extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief in this cause, pursuant to Rules 38.6 and 10.5 (b) of 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: 

I.

The Appellant in this cause was convicted in the 124th District Court, Gregg County, 

Texas in cause number 42425-B for the offense of Injury to a Child, Elderly or Disabled 

Individual. On November 24, 2014, punishment was assessed at Ten years in the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. 

II. 

The Reporter=s record was filed on May 13, 2015. The Appellant=s Brief is due on or 

about July 13, 2015. 

III. 

The Appellant hereby requests an extension of time to file Appellant=s Brief. 

The undersigned counsel has been unable to devote sufficient time to the review of the 

ACCEPTED

06-15-00036-CR

SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

TEXARKANA, TEXAS

7/13/2015 12:15:29 PM

DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

 FILED IN 6th COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 7/13/2015 12:15:29 PM DEBBIE AUTREY Clerk
record, research and preparation of Appellant=s Brief for the following good and sufficient 

reasons:

This counsel has been ill and is still under a doctor’s care following his doctor’s 

appointments on July 2, 2015 and July 7, 2015.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of 

Appellant, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court extend the time for filing Appellant=s 

Brief for an additional one (01) week, to July 20, 2015. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant

140 E. Tyler Street, Suite 240

Longview, TX 75601

(903) 753-7071 Fax (903) 753-8783

State Bar # 06249300
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As Attorney of Record for Defendant, I do hereby Certify that a true and correct copy of 

the above and foregoing document was this date provided to the Attorney for the State.

Date: 07-13-15

__/s/ Clement Dunn_______

Attorney for Appellant
FOR THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS

AT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

QUINTON JACKSON '

Appellant

VI. ' CASE NO. 06-15-00036-CR

TRIAL COURT NO. 42425-B

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee '

ORDER

BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the _____ day of __________________, 2015, came

on to be considered the above and foregoing Second Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Appellant=s Brief. After consideration of the same, it is the opinion of the Court that Appellant=s 

Motion be:

( ) GRANTED, and the present cause is hereby extended until _________________, 

2015.

( ) DENIED, to which ruling the Appellant excepts.

( ) SET FOR HEARING ON THE _____ day of __________________, 2015, at 

_____ o=clock_____.

SIGNED:

_____________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING
@conference{1211006,
  author = {Jody Jacobs and Julie Haney and Susanne M. Furman},
  title = {Measuring the Effectiveness of U.S. Government Security Awareness Programs: A Mixed-Methods Study},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-07-31 04:07:00},
  publisher = {The 10th International Conference on HCI in Business, Government and Organizations (HCIBGO), an affiliated conference of the HCI International Conference, promotes and supports multidisciplinary dialogue, cross-fertilization of ideas and greater synergies , Copenhagen, DK},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=936132},
  language = {en},
}
@article{1215096,
  author = {Edward Garboczi and Newell Moser and Samantha Webster and Kornel Ehmann and Jian Cao and Kamel Fezzaa and Tao Sun},
  title = {Pore Formation Driven by Particle Impact in Laser, Powder-blown Directed Energy Deposition},
  year = {2023},
  number = {2},
  month = {2023-05-26 04:05:00},
  publisher = {PNAS Nexus},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=935021},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad178},
  language = {en},
}
IV 

House Calendar No. 42 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 564 

[Report No. 116–212] 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) making continuing 

appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 

Mr. MCGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) making 

continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2020, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it 

2 shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 

3 4378) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 

4 2020, and for other purposes. All points of order against 

5 consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be con6 sidered as read. All points of order against provisions in 

7 the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considVerDate Sep 11 2014 20:05 Sep 19, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR564.RH HR564

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 564 RH 

1 ered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto 

2 to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 

3 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 

4 and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appro5 priations; and (2) one motion to recommit. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 42 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 564 

[Report No. 116–212] 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4378) 

2020, and for other purposes. making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 4460]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1489]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,127]


Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer Solutions, HP Consumer 
Hardware Inkjet Lab, Including Leased Workers of Hightower Technology 
Capital, Inc., Vancouver, WA; Amended Certification Regarding 
Eligibility To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative 
Trade Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on October 23, 2008, applicable to all workers of 
Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer Solutions, HP Consumer 
Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington. The notice was published in 
the Federal Register on November 10, 2008 (73 FR 66676).
    In response to a petition filed by a company official of Hightower 
Technology Capital, Inc., Vancouver, Washington, on behalf of workers 
providing contract design services to Hewlett-Packard at Vancouver, 
Washington (TA-W-64,546), the Department reviewed the certification for 
workers of Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer Solutions, HP 
Consumer Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington (TA-W-64,127).
    The review shows that workers of Hightower Technology Capital, Inc. 
worked on-site at Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer Solutions, 
HP Consumer Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington, and are 
sufficiently under the control of Hewlett-Packard to be considered 
leased workers.
    The Department is amending the certification to clarify that the 
certification is to cover workers and former workers of Hightower 
Technology Capital, Inc. at Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer 
Solutions, HP Consumer Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington as 
well as workers and former workers of the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,127 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Hewlett-Packard Company, Inkjet Consumer 
Solutions, HP Consumer Hardware Inkjet Lab, Vancouver, Washington, 
including on-site leased workers of Hightower Technology Capital, 
Inc., who became totally or partially separated from employment on 
or after September 26, 2007 through October 23, 2010, are eligible 
to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade 
Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade 
adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of January 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-1489 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE MATTER OF § No. 181, 2015
BERNARD BRAGER § Board Case No. 112013-B
Submitted: June 24, 2015
Decided: July 13, 2015
Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER

This 13" day of July, 2014, it appears that:

(1) The Board on Professional Responsibility filed its Report and
Recommendation with this Court on April 14, 2015.

(2) The Board found that the Respondent violated Delaware Rule of
Conduct 5.5(b)(1), the unauthorized practice of law, by establishing a systematic
and continuous legal presence in Delaware and the Board recommends a sanction
of public reprimand.

(3) The Respondent asks this Court to accept the Board’s Report and
Recommendation and impose a public reprimand. The Office of Disciplinary
Counsel objects to the Board’s recommendation and requests the imposition of a
suspension.

(4) We do not decide the merits of the Board’s factual finding that the

Respondent violated Delaware Rule of Conduct 5.5(b)(1) and, instead, rely upon


the Respondent’s acceptance of that factual determination by the Board. Under the

circumstances presented, we have concluded that a public reprimand is the

appropriate sanction.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Respondent,

Bernard Brager, is publicly reprimanded for his admitted violation of Delaware

Rule of Conduct Rule 5.5(b)(1).

BY THE COURT:

P owbyy HaWlanS—

Justice
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 1 8

- 00 367

- C R



### ____________________

GARY PAIGE

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_____________________________________________________ ___________________

On A ppeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 18

- 28520

_________________________________________________ _______________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 27 , 20 18 , the trial co urt sentenced Gary Paige on a conviction for

possession of marijuana

. Paige filed a notice of appeal on September 13, 2018 . The

trial court signed a certification in which the court certified that this is a plea

- bargain

case and the defendant has no right of appeal , and the defendant has waived the right

of appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The district clerk has provided the trial

court’s certification to the Court of Appeals. On September 21 , 20 18 , we notified

the parties that we would dismiss the appeal unless the a ppellant established grounds2 for continuing the appeal. No response has been filed. Because the trial court’s

certification shows the defendant does not have the right of appeal, we must dismiss

the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). Accordingly, we dism iss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

________________________________ CHARLES KREGER

Justice

Submitted on October 23, 2018

Opinion Delivered October 24, 2018

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit 13.2

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

CFO
Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United
States Code) in connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F of BHP Billiton Plc and BHP Billiton Limited, (the Companies) for the annual period ended 30 June 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), the undersigned officer of the Companies, hereby certifies, to such officers 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 Companies.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                |  |                        
|--------------- |  | -----------------------
|               
|/s/ Graham Kerr
|Name:           |  | Graham Kerr            
|Title:          |  | Chief Financial Officer
|Date:           |  | 25 September 2013      

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to
the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section.
#### SPARKS v. ENGLAND et al.

No. 13.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, Southwestern Division.

March 21, 1941.

Henry Warten, of Joplin, Mo., for plaintiff.

R. H. Davis, of Joplin, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, Judge.

Plaintiff seeks damages for trespass upon her burial lot. The defendants deny ownership but do say that they removed a tombstone as alleged by plaintiff. This tombstone, it is alleged by the defendants, was restored with unimportant changes. The plaintiff says that an inferior tombstone was restored.

The main issues in the case are on questions of damages. I can find no basis for a summary judgment. While plaintiff presents a deed to the property, yet the question of ownership is merely a matter of proof in the general step toward damages. It is not an end within itself. There is no reason for entering a preliminary judgment that plaintiff was the owner of the lot.

It is admitted by the defendants that the tombstone was removed, but they claim it was replaced. There is no place for a summary judgment upon these averments.

Rule 56 of the New Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, contemplates a summary judgment for a part or all of the claim made in the prayer of the claimant and does not contemplate summary judgments on evidentiary matters en route to that goal.

Judge Davis has filed a motion to vacate an order striking part of his answer. These averments perform no office. It *689was only pleading evidence and Judge Davis will be permitted to prove the identical facts in mitigation of the alleged damages.

Mr. Warten is not entitled to have a summary judgment entered and Judge Davis is not entitled to have the order mentioned vacated.
**EXHIBIT32**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the followingcertifications are being made to accompany the Registrant’s quarterly report onForm 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended April 26, 2008:**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Office (1)**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended April 26,2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: June 4, 2008 |   |   | /s/    BURTON  M. TANSKY             |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |   | Burton M. Tansky   President and Chief Executive Officer |

** **

**Certification of Chief Financial Office (1)**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Neiman Marcus, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies,to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended April 26,2008 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) orSection 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and

 

(ii) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: June 4, 2008 |   |   | /s/    JAMES  E. SKINNER                            |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     |   |   | James E. Skinner   Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

** **

----

(1) A signed original for this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to Neiman Marcus, Inc. and will be retained by NeimanMarcus, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6112

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

NATHAN LOYAL HOWARD, a/k/a Nathan Hale,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CR-94-26, CA-96-415-1)

Submitted: May 15, 1997 Decided: June 3, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathan Loyal Howard, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (1994), to modify or

reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Howard, Nos. CR94-26; CA-96-415-1 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 13, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of Brekford International Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Chandra (C.B.) Brechin, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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 results of operations of the Company.





/s/ C.B. BrechinChandra (C.B.) BrechinPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal Financial OfficerDate: May 5, 2010





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT*

                                                                   JURISDICTION
                                                                        OF
                                                                   INCORPORATION
                                                                   -------------
Constellation Holdings, Inc. ...................................     Maryland
Constellation Investments, Inc. ................................     Maryland
Constellation Power, Inc. ......................................     Maryland
Constellation Real Estate Group, Inc. ..........................     Maryland
Constellation EnterprisesTM, Inc................................     Maryland
Constellation Energy Solutions, Inc. ...........................     Delaware
Constellation Power Source, Inc. ...............................     Delaware
Constellation Energy Source, Inc. ..............................     Delaware
Constellation Energy Projects & Services, Inc. .................     Delaware
Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation.............................   Pennsylvania
BGE Home Products & Services, Inc. .............................     Maryland

---------------
*The names of certain indirectly owned subsidiaries have been omitted because,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, they would not constitute a
significant subsidiary pursuant to Rule 1-02(w) of Regulation S-X.

                                       72
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 25, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-20748

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANTONIO DIMAS-SALGADO, also known as Vicente Dimas, also

known as Vicente Dimas Salgado,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:05-CR-154-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Antonio Dimas-Salgado appeals his guilty plea

conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United

States. He argues that the felony and aggravated felony

provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional

in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). His

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Dimas-Salgado

contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that
No. 05-20748

-2-

a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres

in light of Apprendi, we have repeatedly rejected such arguments

on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United

States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Dimas-Salgado properly concedes

that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for

further review. Because Dimas-Salgado has shown no error in the

judgment of the district court, that judgment is AFFIRMED.