alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed March 23, 2022

In t he 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 21

- 00689

- CV

ANGELOS KOLOBOTOS AND KOLOBOTOS PROPERTIES, LLC

, Appellants

V.

JTREO , INC. AND DAVID BUTTROSS A/K/A DAVID A. BUTTROSS, II

, Appellees

On Appeal from the 95th District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 07775

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Carlyle

By a January 19, 2022 order, th e Court reinstated th is appeal and directed

appellants to file their brief by February 18, 2022. When they did not file a brief, the

Court notified them by February 28, 2022 postcard that failure to file a brief and

rule

- complian t extension motion within ten days would result in dismissal. Because

appellants have not complied , we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 8 .8 (a)(1),

42.3(b), (c).– 2

–

210689f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/ /

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ANGELOS KOLOBOTOS AND KOLOBOTOS PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellants

No. 05

- 21

- 00689

- CV V.

JTREO, INC. AND DAVID

BUTTROSS A/K/A DAVID A. BUTTROSS, II, Appellees On Appeal from the 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 20

- 07775. Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle,

Justices Smith and Garcia participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellees JTREO, Inc. and David Buttross a/k/a David A. Buttross, II recover their costs, if any, of this appeal from appellants Angelos

Kolobotos and Kolobotos Pr operties, LLC.

Judgment entered this 23 rd day of March

, 2022.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15678]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1842-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]


Alabama; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1842-DR), dated June 3, 2009, and 
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: June 25, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Alabama is hereby amended to include the following 
area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration 
of June 3, 2009.

    Bullock County for Individual Assistance (already designated for 
Public Assistance).

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment 
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, 
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for 
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster 
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, 
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared 
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-15678 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-23-P
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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:  February 11, 2011 | By: /s/ JEFFREY R. SMITH                                             |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Jeffrey R. Smith, President                                          |
|                               | (Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial  Officer) |
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 13, 2015.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of

the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, July 13, 2015

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A15D0451. IN RE: ESTATE OF ALCORA MARIE MOORE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

2014ES0296
ee |

FILE

URT.
vath eu ISTO!

1D IN
OF APPEALS |

N Te Lh

JUL 2

CHRISTOPH
CHE?

A i MH Li LTE

oh Lp $05 duu 59/ Meiliée eLlors

wr

Tt ZS 19/6 q,

: ee “Vanlhy taberntted onthe 2)

S flip Dy. 05 digntd bey Hard bl Lovie,

Gestd sya 7
<PAGE>


                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.26.5


                                AMENDMENT NO. 3

                                     TO THE

                       LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.

                             2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN

     This Amendment No. 3 (the "Amendment") to the Loral Space & Communications
Ltd. 2000 Stock Option Plan (the "Plan") is made effective as of this 25th day
of September, 2001.

     Pursuant to resolutions of the Board of Directors of Loral Space &
Communications Ltd. (the "Company") dated September 25, 2001, the Plan is hereby
amended as follows:

          1. Section 3(a) of the Plan is hereby amended by increasing to
     37,000,000 the number of shares of the Company's Common Stock, par value
     $0.01 per share, reserved for issuance under the Plan.

     Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Plan
shall remain unchanged.

                                          LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS LTD.


                                          By: /s/ AVI KATZ

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

                                              Name: Avi Katz


                                              Title:   Vice President and
                                              Secretary
EXHIBIT 14(a)(2)(23)


                         Consent of Independent Auditors



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-306-04)  pertaining to the Non-Statutory  Stock Option Plan for the
Directors and the Stock  Incentive Plan of The Franklin  Holding  Corporation of
our report dated February 16, 2001, with respect to the financial  statements of
Franklin  Capital  Corporation   (formerly  The  Franklin  Holding  Corporation)
included in the Annual Report (10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2000, filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP


New York, New York
March 27, 2001
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

In connection with the
Quarterly Report of Affinion Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Todd H. Siegel,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (i) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: April 29, 2011



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Todd H. Siegel                                  
|Todd H. Siegel                                      
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### BOYNTON v. R. J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO.

No. 672.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Oct. 21, 1940.

Gordon D. Boynton, of Boston, Mass., pro se.

Harry B. White, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

McLELLAN, District Judge.

The plaintiff having made a motion in writing that the Court order that the deposition of Louis Feldman be not taken by the defendant, the motion appeared on today’s list. The plaintiff did not appear and the defendant did. The motion accordingly is denied, but its denial is not to be understood as a precedent upon the question whether an expert witness of one of the parties should be compelled to express his professional opinion in connection with a deposition taken by the other party.
Third Department,

October, 2006

(October 5, 2006)

#### In the Matter of Injah Tafari, Appellant, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

[821 NYS2d 679]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Kavanagh, J.), entered December 2, 2005 in Ulster County, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner, an inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rule that prohibits making threats after he refused to be examined by a facility doctor and warned the doctor that his fellow gang members would “take *1030care of’ him. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of the charge and a penalty was imposed. The determination was affirmed on administrative appeal, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. Supreme Court dismissed the petition and petitioner now appeals.

We affirm. Initially, we reject petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the misbehavior report, which complied with the relevant regulatory requirements and adequately notified petitioner of the location of the incident—a fact which he acknowledged at the hearing *(see Matter of Modlenaar v Goord,*21 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2005]). We likewise find no merit to petitioner’s claim that he was improperly denied the right to call an inmate witness, who was not present during the incident and had no firsthand knowledge of the events that had transpired *(see Matter of Toney v Goord, 26*AD3d 613, 614 [2006]). In addition, petitioner’s claim of hearing officer bias is belied by the record, which demonstrates that petitioner received a fair and impartial hearing in which he was provided with a full opportunity to present a defense *(see Matter of Davis v Goord,*21 AD3d 606, 608-609 [2005]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, including that the misbehavior report was retaliatory in nature and the Hearing Officer failed to assess his mental health, are either unpreserved or lacking in merit.

Mercure, J.P, Peters, Mugglin, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 814 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of January 26 through 

February 1, 2020, as ‘‘National School Choice Week’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2020 

Mr. MITCHELL (for himself, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. MOOLENAAR, Ms. FOXX of North Carolina, Mr. 

LAMALFA, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. WALKER, and Mr. BYRNE) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and Labor 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of the week of January 26 through February 1, 2020, as ‘‘National School 

Choice Week’’. 

Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K–12 education 

empowers parents to select education environments that 

meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; 

Whereas high-quality K–12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home 

schooling; 

2 

•HRES 814 IH 

Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of the 

education environments prepare children to achieve their 

dreams; 

Whereas more families than ever before in the United States 

actively choose the best education for their children; 

Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental 

choice in education can inform additional families of the 

benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, 

and effective education environments for their children; 

Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for 

their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves 

the utmost respect; and 

Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate 

the benefits of educational choice during the tenth annual 

National School Choice Week, held the week of January 

26 through February 1, 2020: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘National 

3 School Choice Week’’; 

4 (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, 

5 and school leaders from K–12 education environ6 ments of all varieties for their persistence, achieve7 ments, dedication, and contributions to society in the 

8 United States; 

9 (3) encourages all parents, during National 

10 School Choice Week, to learn more about the edu11 cation options available to them; and 

3 

•HRES 814 IH 

1 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities 

3 during National School Choice Week to raise public 

4 awareness of the benefits of opportunity in edu5 cation. 

Æ
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





In
connection with this Quarterly Report of Red Trail Energy, LLC (the “Company”)
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark E. Klimpel,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:





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.





Dated:  May
15, 2009





/s/
      Mark E. KlimpelMark
      E. KlimpelChief
      Financial Officer
# Result 19
#### BLOOMFIELD et al. v. MEASURING DEVICE CORPORATION.

District Court, S. D. New York.

April 6, 1939.

*201Bernard Berger, of New York City, for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

HULBERT, District Judge.

This is a civil action. Plaintiff’s attorney presents an order providing for the dismissal of the action and the complaint therein without prejudice and without costs, together with a notice of motion returnable April 5th, 1939, with proof of service of a copy thereof upon the attorney for the defendant.

Upon the return day of said motion, only bankruptcy matters were heard, consequently this motion has never appeared on the calendar, the defendant has not had an opportunity to be heard, and I am without any knowledge whether he would oppose or consent that the motion be granted.

This action must either be disposed of upon stipulation, or it may be brought on the regular Tuesday or Friday motion calendars. See Rule 41(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. The proposed order is returned to the clerk unsigned.
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 SRKP 10, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30,
2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
my knowledge:





(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/ Richard A. RappaportRichard
      A. Rappaport
              Principal
      Executive Officer
              July
      26, 2010
nae ¢3,474-0l

fa: Abel Acosta, Clerk. PAB LIAS
: A isis tor aChang-x ot Md re6S..

Kenneth Wl. Groves £2 TDCTREIIHR? Kh Te Ch No
C-CLOH79-EGVIGCE 39 D-4 WAH-¢3, YPA-al
Lam no_lengci_on the Beto l Unkt.
Lamon theel bord Unde. Add reg. BEAG Stage LW y—
9%. New Deston, Texas PEEPO.

On this day 2318S f teclue the tatic that paye
ILO? weit of Habeas _Cac2oe has heen lECCAMCO and
Presented te the Court.

@ : Abel Neoster Clerk.

RECEIVED IN
COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS

JUL 17 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in a Registration Statement on Form
S-8  (File  Nos.  33-33497, 33-40038, 33-60214 and 33-60644) of our report dated
August  15,  2000 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Criticare
Systems, Inc. appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended  June  30,  2000.



/s/  BDO  Seidman,  LLP
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin
September  26,  2000
Order filed July 8, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00314-CR

____________

CAMERON LAQUINCY GOLD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1367706

ORDER

This court has determined, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

34.5(f) and 34.6(g)(2), that it must inspect the original of State's exhibit 64, a 

video.
The clerk of the 262nd District Court is directed to deliver to the Clerk of 

this court the original of State's exhibit 64, a video, on or before July 14, 2015.

The Clerk of this court is directed to receive, maintain, and keep safe this original 

exhibit; to deliver it to the justices of this court for their inspection; and, upon 

completion of inspection, to return the original of State's exhibit 64, a video, to the 

clerk of the 262nd District Court.

PER CURIAM
Order entered July 20, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01097-CR

DANIEL MAVERO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 10

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MA13-71667-L

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On June 29, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the 

appeal; (2) appellant is represented by court-appointed counsel Jeffrey Buchwald; (3) counsel’s 

explanation for the delay in filing appellant’s brief is that he had not received one of the exhibits 

until recently; and (4) counsel requested fifteen days from the July 16, 2015 findings to file 

appellant’s brief.

We ORDER appellant to file his brief by FRIDAY, AUGUST 7, 2015.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
@misc{1210206,
  author = {Rick Candell and Karl Montgomery and Yongkang Liu and Mohamed Hany},
  title = {Industrial Wireless Deployments in the Navy Shipyard},
  year = {2020},
  month = {2020-08-30 04:08:00},
  publisher = {Advanced Manufacturing Series (NIST AMS), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD},
  url = {https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=930611},
  doi = {https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AMS.300-9},
  language = {en},
}
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-05-00608-CR

James Edward Thompson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 57464, HONORABLE MARTHA J. TRUDO, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal is granted. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a).

The appeal is dismissed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Justices B. A. Smith, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: October 19, 2005

Do Not Publish