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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTIONS

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-14-00924-CR

Style: Ex parte Nii-Otabil Nelson

Date motions filed*: July 9, 2015

Type of motions: Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

Parties filing motions: Appellant’s new counsel Andre D. Evans

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing

Is appeal accelerated? Yes.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: July 15, 2015

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: July 15, 2015

Date Requested: N/A (45 days requested)

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted, in part:

If document is to be filed, document due: August 14, 2015.

 No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s motion for a 45-day extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is

granted, in part, until August 15, 2015, because he retained new counsel on July 3, 

2015, and needs time to obtain evidence via his open records request sent on July 7,

2015, to the State, but no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances given this is an accelerated appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.4. The

Clerk of this Court is directed to note Andre D. Evans’ appearance as additional

counsel for appellant. See id. at 6.2. If counsel Lott J. Brooks III, requests withdrawal,

he must file a motion that complies with Rule 6.5(d).

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

  

Date: July 14, 2015
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer 

Pursuant to 

Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) 

 

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) of Marathon Acquisition Corp. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael S.Gross, the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

BRIAN ANTHONY FRAME,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 149 MAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### Ismael Pabon et al., Respondents, v Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 1.) Cilyn Li, Respondent, v Berdar Equities Co. et al., Respondents, and Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc., Appellant. (Action No. 2.)

[854 NYS2d 175]

On October 3, 2002 Cilyn Li, the plaintiff in action No. 2, was a passenger in a freight elevator operated by Ismael Pabon, a plaintiff in action No. 1. As that elevator was descending, it allegedly suddenly sped up and, traveling at three times its normal speed, plunged into the basement of a building owned by Berdar Equities Co., a defendant in action No. 2 (hereinafter the owner). Earlier that day, Pabon and other freight elevator operators allegedly noticed that the elevator was, at times, moving *703faster than usual. At his deposition, Pabon testified that he complained about the condition to the superintendent of the building, who told him to continue using the elevator.

Since December 2001, at the latest, Nouveau Elevator Industries, Inc. (hereinafter Nouveau), the defendant in action No. 1 and a defendant in action No. 2, had maintained the subject elevator under a service agreement with the owner. Nouveau moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaints in both actions insofar as asserted against it on the ground, among others, that Pabon’s continued operation of the elevator after he noticed it traveling faster than normal was an intervening and superseding cause, relieving it of any liability. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and we affirm.

Nouveau failed to establish, prima facie, its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Even assuming that Pabon had, in fact, previously observed the elevator traveling faster than normal, that by itself is not, as a matter of law, an unforeseeable superseding cause which severed any causal connection between Nouveau’s negligence and the plaintiffs’ injuries, precluding liability *(see Bell v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*90 NY2d 944, 946-947 [1997]; *Kush v City of Buffalo,*59 NY2d 26 [1983]; *Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308, 315-317 [1980]; *Torres v New York City Hous. Auth.,*270 AD2d 100 [2000]; *cf. Buchholz v Trump 767 Fifth Ave., LLC,*5 NY3d 1, 9 [2005]; *Weingarten v Windsor Owners Corp.,*5 AD3d 674, 677 [2004]; *Wright v New York City Tr. Auth.,*221 AD2d 431, 431-432 [1995]). In light of this determination, we need not examine the sufficiency of the opposition papers *(see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; *Kelly v Rehfeld,*26 AD3d 469 [2006]). Lifson, J.P., Ritter, Florio and Garni, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 4(E)

                           CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                      OF
                OMNICOMM SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware corporation.

     The undersigned corporation

     DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

FIRST:  That the holders of a majority of the issued and outstanding shares of
common stock of OmniComm Systems, Inc., in accordance with Chapter 8, Subchapter
VII, Section 228 of the laws of the State of Delaware have consented to amend
the Certificate of Incorporation.

SECOND:  That the amendment(s) or change(s) in the Certificate of Incorporation
of OmniComm Systems, Inc. are as follows:

     Fourth article is changed to read: The total number of common shares of
     stock which the corporation shall have the authority to issue is sixty
     million (60,000,000). All such shares are to have a par value of $0.001.
     The total number of preferred shares of stock which the corporation shall
     have the authority to issue is ten million (10,000,000). The board of
     directors of the OmniComm Systems, Inc. shall have the authority to divide
     the preferred stock into as many series as it shall from time to time
     determine. The board of directors shall determine the number of shares
     comprising each series of preferred stock, which number may, unless
     otherwise provided by the board of directors in creating such series, be
     increased from time to time by action of the board of directors. Each
     series of preferred stock shall be so designated as to distinguish such
     series from the shares of each other series. All series of preferred stock
     shall be of equal rank and have the same powers, preferences and rights,
     and shall be subject to the same qualifications, limitations and
     restrictions, without distinction between the shares of different series
     thereof; provided, however, that there may be variations among different
     series of preferred stock as to dividend rates, prices, terms, conditions
     of redemption, if any, liquidation rights, and terms and conditions of
     conversion, if any, which variations may be fixed and determined by the
     board of directors in their discretion.

THIRD:  This amendment shall be effective on November 16, 2001.

                           Dated: November 27, 2001

                            OmniComm Systems, Inc.



                            By:/s/ David Ginsberg, D.O.
                            ---------------------------
                            David Ginsberg, D.O.
                            Director and Chief Executive Officer

Attested By: /s/ Randall G. Smith
---------------------------------
Randall G. Smith, Secretary
#### FISHER v. TAYLOR.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

Oct. 4, 1940.

Whitaker & Whitaker, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

No attorney for the defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

Application is made for judgment by default. It appears in the record that proper service has been had and that the defendant has failed to make any defense within the time provided by law.

Under Rule 55, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, this default should be entered by the clerk as of course without any application to the court, provided an appropriate affidavit is filed.

However, the court has power to enter an order of default and Rule 55 is not a limitation thereof.

If an appropriate affidavit is filed as to the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, the matter may be referred to the clerk or presented again to the court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Felder, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 767]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Nicholas J. Iacovetta, J), rendered on or about October 14, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making *403application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur— Buckley, EJ, Mazzarelli, Williams, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      22,650,882
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,617,762
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,339,796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,851,855
<PP&E>                                     197,423,380
<DEPRECIATION>                              48,574,230
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             192,166,414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       80,503,780
<BONDS>                                    153,146,836
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                 21,985,750
<COMMON>                                        61,954
<OTHER-SE>                                (63,444,132)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               192,166,414
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           112,849,254
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               63,690,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            85,371,198
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          25,371,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (62,342,639)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (62,342,639)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (62,342,639)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (10.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (10.31)
        

</TABLE>
REED SMITH LLP

Princeton Forrestal Village 

136 Main Street - Suite 250 

Princeton, New Jersey 08540-7839 

Telephone: +1 609 987 0050 

Facsimile: +1 609 951 0824 

Attorneys for Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

MICROBILT CORPORATION, a Delaware 

Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHEX SYSTEMS, INC., a Minnesota 

Corporation, 

Defendant. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action No. 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

To: CLERK OF THE COURT and ALL PARTIES OF RECORD

Kindly enter the appearances of Mark S. Melodia, Esq. and Edward J. Mullins III, Esq., 

of the law firm Reed Smith LLP, as counsel of record for Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. in the 

above-captioned action. We certify that we have been admitted to practice in this Court. Please 

direct all court notices and correspondence regarding this case to the undersigned. 

Respectfully submitted, 

REED SMITH LLP

By: /s/ Mark S. Melodia

Mark S. Melodia 

mmelodia@reedsmith.com 

Edward J. Mullins III 

emullins@reedsmith.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Chex Systems, Inc. 

Dated: December 15, 2010 

Case 3:10-cv-06491-MLC -TJB Document 3 Filed 12/15/10 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 181
**Exhibit 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by    reference in the following Registration Statements of our report dated March    13, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sterling    Financial Corporation and our report dated March 13, 2006, with respect to    management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting,    and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included    in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Sterling Financial Corporation:

| (1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3/A No. 33-55131)        pertaining to the Sterling Financial Corporation Dividend Reinvestment    and Stock Purchase Plan;     |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-28101)    pertaining to the 1997 Directors Stock Compensation Plan and Policy;                                        |
| (3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-103069),        pertaining to the Sterling Financial Corporation 1996 Stock Incentive    Plan; and                    |
| (4) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-126258),        pertaining to the Sterling Financial Corporation 2005 Directors Stock    Compensation Plan and Policy |

Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaMarch 13, 2006

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Ramirez, Appellant.

[855 NYS2d 62]

There was no predicate felony adjudication at the time of defendant’s original sentence of 15 years to life, and such an adjudication would have been superfluous under the law existing at that time. Defendant’s request for resentencing placed the case in a procedural posture that required the People to file a predicate felony statement, and the court was required to sentence defendant as a second felony drug offender whose prior conviction is for a violent felony *(see People v Alcequier,*43 AD3d 699 [2007]). *People v Winthrow*(38 AD3d 323 [2007]) is not to the contrary, since it deals with a different procedural situation that is addressed by CPL 400.21 (8). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.
EXHIBIT 23(b)
                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                    
                                    
We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
(Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,
33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077 and Form S-3, No. 33-36001) pertaining to
various stock option and employee savings plans of Wellman, Inc. of our
report dated 18 January 1996, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Wellman International Limited and subsidiary at 31 December
1995 and 1994, and for each of the three years in the period ended 31
December 1995, included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman, Inc.






KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors



Dublin, Ireland

25 March 1996
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-65,875]

In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on May 1, 2009 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Eastern Display, a Division of Art Guild, Inc., Providence, Rhode Island.

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

Signed in Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-15744 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
<PAGE>


                                  Exhibit 23.2


                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.
                          Certified Public Accountants
                              25/F., Wing On Centre
                           111 Connaught Road Central
                                    Hong Kong




               Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants


Sorrento Networks Corporation
(formerly Osicom Technologies, Inc.)
San Diego, California


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Nos. 333-28863, 333-22291 and 333-51445) on Form S-3 and No. 333-92111 on Form
S-8 of Osicom Technologies, Inc. of our report, dated March 3, 2000, relating to
the consolidated balance sheets of Uni Precision Industrial Limited and
Subsidiaries as of January 31, 1999 and 2000, and the related consolidated
statements of income, cash flows and changes in shareholders' equity for the
years ended January 31, 1999 and 2000, expressed in Hong Kong dollars.




                                                ARTHUR ANDERSEN & CO.

Hong Kong
May 1, 2001
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 24, 2024.

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, April 24, 2024

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24A1137. THE STATE v. CORTEZ CEMAL BRYANT.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On April 09, 2024, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors and a

brief no later than April 19, 2024. As of the date of this order, the appellant's enumeration of

errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed abandoned and is

hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).
Case 1:10-cv-06822-JEI-AMD   Document 8   Filed 02/17/11   Page 1 of 1 PageID: 26
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID: 1559
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 2 of 7 PageID: 1560
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 3 of 7 PageID: 1561
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 4 of 7 PageID: 1562
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 5 of 7 PageID: 1563
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 6 of 7 PageID: 1564
Case 2:10-cv-03208-DMC-JAD Document 111 Filed 05/07/12 Page 7 of 7 PageID: 1565
Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 62 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 1544
Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 62 Filed 03/28/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 1545
Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 62 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 1546
Case 2:11-cv-00230-FSH -PS Document 62 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 1547
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

137291 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 137291 

 COA: 285733 

Saginaw CC: 99-017250-FH 

BERNARD WILLIAM KADE,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 25, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s1117 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 25, 2008 

 Clerk
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 93 3

- C R

Style: Gregory Scott v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed * : November 9 , 201 7

Type of motion: Secon d Motion for E xtension of T ime to File Appellant’s Brief

Party filing motion: Appellant ’s appointed counsel Danny K. Easterling

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

.

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: September 14 , 201 7

Number of extensions granted: 1 Current Due D ate: November 13 , 201 7

Date Requested: J anuary 12 , 201 8 (12 0 days from original due date)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted , in part

If document is to be filed, document due: December 1 3 , 201 7

.  No further extensions of time will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances

.  Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Because appellant ’s c ounsel ’s request notes that he averages three court appearances

per morning and has been working on several other briefs, his second 60

- day extension

is granted , in part , for 30 days, due to the total length requested

, but counsel is

warned that no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary

circumstances

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C), 38.6(d). Accordingly, if

appellant’s brief is not filed by December 13 , 201 7

, the Court may abate this case for a

show

- cause hearing. See id. 38.8(b)(2)

.

Judge’ s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. K e yes

 Acting for the Court

Date: November 14 , 2017