alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ex Parte

Michael Brent Sewell

In the Court of Appeals for the

First or Fourteenth IRTEEN/TH District.Court DISTRICT, LOUR" of Appeals

N<y -15-fr^27-CR

On Appeal from

The 338th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court

Cause No. 1457597

Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of Ap

To the Honorable Court:

Appellant moves, under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3, to

extend time to file his notice of appeal until July 20, 2015.

The deadline for filing the notice of appeal wasJuly 15, 2015.

The trial court is the 338th District Court.

The appealable judgment (denial of habeas corpus relief) was

signed on June 16, 2015.

The trial court case number is 1457597. The style of the case in the

trial court is Ex Parte MichaelBrent Sewell.

The notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on July 20, 2015; a

copy is attached to this motion.

Counsel thought that he had already, beforeJuly 10, 2015, filed the

notice of appeal; the trial court pointed out on July 20, 2015 that he

had not.

ACCEPTED

1457597

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON,TEXAS

7/20/2015 4:04:06 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK
No previous extensions have been granted regarding the notice of

appeal.

Certificate of Service

A copy of this motion will be served on the District Attorney by the

Efile system.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bennett & Bennett, Lawyers

by:

Mark Bennett

TBN 00792970

917Franklin Street, Fourth Floor

Houston, Texas 77002

713.224.1747

MB@ivi3.com
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00047-CV

JOE ERVIN LOCKRIDGE, Appellant

V.

STEPHANIE MARTIN, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 431st District 

Court

of Denton County (20-7122-431)

April 15, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Brian Walker___________________

 Justice Brian Walker
#### In the Matter of Mohamed Saad-El-Din et al., Individually and as Parents and Guardians of Student with a Disability R., an Infant, et al., Appellants, v David M. Steiner, as Commissioner of Education, et al., Respondents.

Decided February 12, 2013

*1033Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.

Judge Rivera taking no part.
@misc{1216081,
  author = {David Holmberg and Thomas Roth},
  title = {Flexible Resource Controller: A Price and Voltage-Responsive Device Controller for GridLAB-D Co-Simulations},
  year = {2023},
  month = {2023-09-25 04:09:00},
  publisher = {Technical Note (NIST TN), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=956654},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2268},
  language = {en},
}
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby  given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and  552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential  trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals  associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of  personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Preterm Birth in Nulliparous Women: An Understudied Population at Great Risk.                    

*Date:*                         July 20-21, 2009.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate cooperative agreement applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Sathasiva B. Kandasamy, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of Child Health  and Human Development, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 5b01, Bethesda, MD 20892-9304, (301) 435-6680,                          *skandasa@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan  Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 19, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-15061 Filed 6-25-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
#### In re Stephanie Truvonne HAWKINS, Debtor, Ohio University, Appellant, v. Stephanie Truvonne Hawkins, Appellee.

No. 04-17475.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 2006.

Filed Dec. 4, 2006.

Donald M. Stevenson, Stockton, CA, for the appellant.

Larry J. Cox, Rocklin, CA, for the ap-pellee.

Before WILLIAM C. CANBY, JR., JOHN T. NOONAN, and RICHARD A. PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ohio University appeals the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) discharging Hawkins from a debt resulting *1317from a judgment against her for breach of contract with the university. The BAP held that this debt and the resulting judgment did not meet the criteria for a loan or educational benefit that are excluded from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).

We adopt the opinion of the BAP, which is reported at 317 B.R. 104, and affirm its judgment.
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-65,891] 

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 6, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Springs Global US, Inc., Sardis, Mississippi. 

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

Signed in Washington, DC, this 18th day of May 2009. 

Richard Church, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-15210 Filed 6-26-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-15-00069-CV

WILLIAM M. WINDSOR,

Appellant

v.

KELLIE MCDOUGALD,

Appellee

From the 378th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 88611

ORDER

A document entitled “Appellant’s Brief” was received from appellant, William 

M. Windsor and filed with the Court on June 26, 2015. Windsor’s brief in this matter is 

premature. Neither the clerk’s record nor the reporter’s record in this appeal have been 

filed. An appellant’s brief is not due until 30 days after the clerk’s record or the

reporter’s record is filed, whichever is later. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6. Because it was filed 

before the clerk’s record and reporter’s record were even prepared, the “brief” does not 
Windsor v. McDougald Page 2

contain the necessary references to the official record to be a proper brief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.1. Accordingly, the “Appellant’s Brief” is stricken. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Brief stricken

Order issued and filed July 16, 2015
**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 ES Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Office of
      the
      Comptroller of the Currency on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Anthony P.
      Costa, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.






Date:  
                August 13, 2007
            /s/
                Anthony P Costa
              Anthony P. Costa
              Chairman and Chief Executive
                Officer
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The undersigned, David Gorodyansky, the Chief Financial Officer of INTELLIGENT BUYING. INC.  (the "Company"), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



1. The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this statement this 13th day of August 2008.



/s/ David Gorodyansky

_______________________



David Gorodyansky

Principal  Financial Officer







A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Intelligent Buying, Inc. and will be retained by Intelligent Buying, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
10

Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Number of Gaming Revenue

Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Operations Revenues Percentage

Portland (fka Region I) 49 $2,520,908 47 $2,376,025 2 $144,883 6.1%

Sacramento (fka Region II) 62 $6,969,881 59 $7,363,493 3 ($393,612) (5.3%)

Phoenix (fka Region III) 47 $2,599,885 46 $2,773,715 1 ($173,830) (6.3%)

St. Paul (fka Region IV) 120 $4,384,444 115 $4,402,311 5 ($17,867) (0.4%)

Tulsa (Eastern part of fka Region V) 64 $1,715,393 62 $1,699,940 2 $15,453 0.9%

OK City (Western part of fka Region V) 49 $1,509,200 48 $1,347,242 1 $161,958 12.0%

Washington (fka Region VI) 28 $6,782,735 28 $6,776,100 0 $6,635 0.1%

Totals 419 $26,482,447 405 $26,738,826 14 ($256,379) (1.0%)

Portland Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Sacramento California, and Northern Nevada

Phoenix Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Southern Nevada.

St. Paul Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Wyoming

Tulsa Kansas, and Eastern Oklahoma.

OK City Western Oklahoma and Texas.

Washington Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and New York.

Source: Compiled from gaming operation audited financial statements received by the NIGC through May 18, 2010.

National Indian Gaming Commission

Tribal Gaming Revenues (in thousands) by Region

Fiscal Year 2009 and 2008

Fiscal Year 2009 Fiscal Year 2008 Increase (decrease)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MICHAEL RONALD BROOKS, No. 83542 FILED 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

MICHAEL RONALD BROOKS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

OCT 28 2132 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BYÇ. 

DEPLflY CLE 

No. 83608 • 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS 

These are pro se appeals from judgments of conviction. This 

court's review of these appeals reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, 

the district court entered the judgments of conviction on July 16, 2021. 

Appellant did not file the notices of appeal, however, until September 21, 

2021, well after the expiration of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by 

NRAP 4(b). Because an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction 

in this court, Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994), 

this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeals, and 

ORDERS these appeals DISMISSED.' 

J. 

Cadish 

Piek. J 

Pickering Herndon 

"Based on this dismissal, the court takes no action in regard to the 

pro se letter filed in Docket No. 83608. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(C) I947A arlett. 
cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge 

Michael Ronald Brooks 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1447A
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29702-29703]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine; Notice 
of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the

[[Page 29703]]

provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; RFA AT09-002 
Translational Tools for Clinical Studies of CAM Interventions.
    Date: July 15, 2009.
    Time: 12 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Ray Bramhall, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 6707 
Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#305242515d58515c5c42705d51595c1e5e59581e575f46"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8dacad9d5d0d9d4d4caf8d5d9d1d496d6d1d096dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and 
Alternative Medicine Special Emphasis Panel; Botanical Centers.
    Date: August 2-3, 2009.
    Time: 5 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Courtyard Marriott Washingtonian Center, 204 Boardwalk 
Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Martina Schmidt, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review, National Center for Complementary & 
Alternative Medicine, NIH, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 401, 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3456, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3340505b5e5a575e52735e525a5f1d5d5a5b1d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aeddcdc6c3c7cac3cfeec3cfc7c280c0c7c680c9c1d8">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.213, 
Research and Training in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 17, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-14701 Filed 6-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[994 NE2d 387, 971 NYS2d 491]

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Isidoro Marra, Appellant.

Argued May 28, 2013;

decided June 26, 2013

*980APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Girvin & Ferlazzo, P.C.,*Albany *(Salvatore D. Ferlazzo*and *Stuart M. Cohen*of counsel), for appellant.

*Jeffrey S. Carpenter, District Attorney,*Herkimer, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant Isidoro Marra was convicted by jury verdict of first-degree rape (Penal Law § 130.35 [2] [engaging in sexual intercourse with a person incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless]). The trial judge sentenced him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 18 years followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision, and imposed a 20-year order of protection. Observing that the case “turned largely upon the credibility of the victim, and the jury evidently believed the victim’s testimony that defendant inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent while she was asleep,” the Appellate Division declined to substitute its credibility determinations for the jury’s and held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (96 AD3d 1623, 1624-1625 [4th Dept 2012]). Additionally, the Court rejected defendant’s claims of evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct as unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. But “in light of [defendant’s] *981age, his lack of a prior criminal record and other mitigating circumstances,” the Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing defendant’s sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years plus a five-year period of postrelease supervision *(id.*at 1627). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (19 NY3d 998 [2012]), and we now affirm.

 Defendant objects to the trial judge’s decision to admit seven photographs taken of the victim at the hospital where she was examined after calling 911 to report a rape. These photographs depict red marks and bruises on her body. As an initial matter, we conclude that defendant preserved the objections he makes on appeal to the admission of these photographs into evidence. The transcript of the hearing on defendant’s motion in limine shows that the trial judge considered whether the photographs were properly authenticated, relevant and not unduly prejudicial. We cannot say the judge abused his discretion by allowing the photographs into evidence in view of the circumstances of this case, including the People’s theory of physical helplessness. Finally, we conclude that defense counsel’s alleged failings, such as his neglect to object to the prosecutor’s comment in summation about condom use, did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, and that defendant received meaningful representation.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.

Order affirmed, in a memorandum.
#### Rose Beharry, Plaintiff, v Ulrich Guzman, Defendant, and North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System et al., Appellants. Matthew Jay Warmund, Nonparty Respondent.

[822 NYS2d 612]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages, in effect, for employment discrimination in violation of Executive Law § 296, the defendants North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and North Shore University Hospital, Inc., appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph, J.), dated March 10, 2005, as referred to the trial court those branches of their motion which were to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs attorney, and for an award of costs, including an attorney’s fee, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

Alleging that the plaintiff’s counsel engaged in frivolous *742conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, the defendants North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and North Shore University Hospital, Inc. (hereinafter the Hospital), moved, inter alia, to impose a sanction on the plaintiffs counsel, and for an award of costs, including an attorney’s fee. In an order dated March 10, 2005, among other things, those branches of the Hospital’s motion which were to impose a sanction and for an award of costs were referred to the trial court for disposition. The Hospital appeals from that portion of the order, purportedly as of right.

A party may not appeal as of right from so much of an order that merely defers disposition of a motion until tried *(see*CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; *Kaplan v Rosiello,*16 AD3d 626, 626-627 [2005]; *Weissman v Weissman,*8 AD3d 264, 265 [2004]; *J & A Vending v JAM. Vending,*268 AD2d 504, 505 [2000]). Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed, as leave to appeal has not been granted *(see Kaplan v Rosiello, supra; Weissman v Weissman, supra).*Miller, J.P, Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.