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

NO. 03-23-00146-CV

J. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

NO. 22DFAM329703, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

In this suit affecting the parent-child relationship filed by the Texas Department 

of Family and Protective Services (the Department), appellant J.G., the father of one of the two 

children involved in the suit, filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s de novo order 

affirming a ruling by the associate judge that returned J.G.’s child to the child’s mother on a 

monitored basis, dismissed the Department as temporary managing conservator of that child, and 

continued the Department as temporary managing conservator of the other child involved in the 

suit. On May 23, 2023, the Clerk of this Court sent a letter to J.G.’s counsel informing her that it 

appeared this Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter because the district court’s order does 

not appear to be a final, appealable order and requesting that she file a response no later than

June 2, 2023. As of today’s date, we have received no response from counsel.

In suits affecting the parent-child relationship, this Court has appellate jurisdiction 

over final orders. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(b). An order is final “when it disposes of all 
2

issues and all parties in the record.” In re R.R.K., 590 S.W.3d 535, 540 (Tex. 2019) (citing 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001)). The order from which Father 

seeks to appeal does not dispose of all issues and parties in this suit, which remained pending at 

the time of the order. Consequently, the order is not final, and we lack jurisdiction to review it. 

See id. at 544; In re J.D., 304 S.W.3d 522, 524-27 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009, no pet.); see also 

J.C. v. Texas Dep’t of Fam. & Protective Servs., No. 03-22-00395-CV, 2022 WL 3691683, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 26, 2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re M.A.M., No. 07-19-00173-CV, 

2019 WL 3486731, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 31, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

__________________________________________

Gisela D. Triana, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: June 9, 2023
30th
      May
      2007





Private
      and Confidential





PauI
      Senior


Airspan
      Communications Ltd





Dear
      Paul





In
      recognition of your accomplishments, the Board of Directors is proud
      to


promote
      you to Chief Technical Officer. To reflect your promotion, your
      salary


will
      increase by 10% to £125,224.00. This is effective from 1st May
      2007.





The
      remainder of our terms and conditions remain unchanged.





It
      only
      remains for me to offer my congratulations on your promotion and to


wish
      you
      continued success in your new role.





To
      confirm your agreement, please sign and date both copies of this
      letter


returning
      one to Human Resources.





Yours
      sincerely











Michele
      Martin


Human
      Resources Manager





I
      agree
      to the above effective from 1st May 2007.








Signed
            
            
            Date


(Paul
      Senior)
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of China Pharma Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Frank Waung hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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: March 2, 2011
By:
/s/ Frank WaungFrank WaungChief Financial Officer(principal financial officer and principal accounting officer)








This certification accompanies each 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.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6611

DARRICK H. HOOD, Petitioner - Appellant,
versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge. (2:06-cv-00422-WDK) Submitted: October 24, 2007 Decided: November 13, 2007 Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Darrick H. Hood, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Darrick H. Hood seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1321 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1321

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2019

               Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit interference with 
         voting systems under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Defending the Integrity of Voting 
Systems Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INTERFERENCE WITH VOTING SYSTEMS.

    Section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the 
                end; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) that--
                            ``(i) is part of a voting system; and
                            ``(ii)(I) is used for the management, 
                        support, or administration of a Federal 
                        election; or
                            ``(II) has moved in or otherwise affects 
                        interstate or foreign commerce;'';
            (2) in paragraph (11), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (12), by striking the period and inserting 
        a semicolon; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) the term `Federal election' means any election (as 
        defined in section 301(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
        of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30101(1))) for Federal office (as defined in 
        section 301(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 
        U.S.C. 30101(3))); and
            ``(14) the term `voting system' has the meaning given the 
        term in section 301(b) of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (52 
        U.S.C. 21081(b)).''.

            Passed the Senate July 17, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```
#### HORNSBY et al. v. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY.

Civ. No. 902.

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

July 7, 1950.

Frazier, Roberts & Weill, Chattanooga, Tenn., for plaintiffs.

Joseph C. Swidler, Knoxville, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff has moved the Court to re-tax the costs in this case. The costs were taxed on June 8, 1950 and plaintiff’s motion to retax was filed on June 27, 1950, nineteen days later.

It is provided in Rule 54(d), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., that “on motion served within 5 days (after taxed by the Clerk) the action of the clerk may he reviewed by the court.” There is thus a limitation of five days within which the Court may review the tax bill.

This time limitation may be enlarged under Rule 6(b) if application therefor is *458made before the time expires; or if made after the expiration of the time, it may be enlarged “where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect”.

No application was made for an extension of time within the five day period and no explanation is offered by the plaintiff as to the reason for the delay.

The case is very similar to United States v. One Ford Coupe, D.C., 26 F.Supp. 598, wherein a motion to retax costs was made on the sixth day after the Clerk had made up the tax bill. It was there held that the motion was too late. The Court said, “Had there been any reasonable excuse for the delinquency of the Defendant, Rule 6(b) provides a simple method whereby the time might have been extended. As the Defendant has failed to avail himself of this provision, the Court has no alternative but to apply the strict language of the act and to dismiss the motion for review”.

In the absence of any explanation of the delay in this case, the Court is unable to review the tax bill and the motion is overruled.

Order accordingly.
FUSCO & MACALUSO, L.L.C.

150 Passaic Avenue

P.O. Box 838

Passaic, New Jersey 07055

(973) 779-1163

Attorneys for Defendant, Rory Donadio

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ORDER
Plaintiff,

v. : Case No.: 2:11-cr-00194-DMC
RORY DONADIO :

Defendant.

This matter having been opened to the Court upon the application of Defendant Rory
Donadio (“Defendant”) (Anthony J. Fusco, Jr., Esq., appearing) to modify the Order setting
conditions of his release, dated March 31, 2011, to allow Defendant to travel from New York to
California November 2, 2011 to November 6, 2011 and December 1, 2011 to December 11, 2011; and
the United States of America, by Paul J. Fishman, United States Attomey for the District of New
Jersey (Andre M. Espinosa, Assistant U.S. Attomey, appearing) and Pretrial Services (Emily
Rosado, Pretrial Services Officer, appearing) having consented to a modification of Defendant’s
bail to allow the travel at issue; and for good cause shown,

IT IS on this Ag day of October, 2011,

ORDERED that, Defendant may travel from New York to California for the limited
period between November 2, 2011 to November 6, 2011 and December 1, 2011 to December 11, 2011;

and it is further,



ORDERED that Defendant shall communicate with Defendant’s Pretrial Service Officer
while out of the District of New Jersey, as directed by Defendant’s Pretrial Services Officer, and

it is further,

ORDERED that all other applicable prior conditions of bail shall remain in place.

Lo

HONORABLE DENNIS CAVANAYSHL
United States District Judge
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                    |   |                            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
| Date: November 18, 2010 |   | /s/ Harold Brand      |   |
|                    |   | Harold Brand                    |   |
|                    |   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                    |   |                            |   |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PATRICK COLLINS :

Plaintiff : Civil Action No. 11-1483(FSH)

v. :

JOHN DOES 1-13, : ORDER

Defendant :

This matter having come before the Court by way of plaintiff’s motion for permission to

conduct discovery before holding a conference pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) in the form of

serving subpoenas on internet service providers to obtain information about the identity of the

person/entity to whom internet protocol addresses are assigned;

and the Court having considered the submission, the claims, and governing law;

and for the reasons set forth in the Opinion delivered on the record on June 1, 20111

and for good cause shown,

IT IS ON THIS 1st day of June, 2011

ORDERED the motion for permission to conduct discovery before holding a conference

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) [Docket No. 9] in the form of serving subpoenas on internet

service providers to obtain information about the identity of the person/entity to whom the

specific internet protocol addresses set forth in the motion are assigned is granted. Service of the

subpoenas shall comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Information obtained from

the internet service providers shall only be used for the purpose of this litigation and the plaintiff

A transcript of the Opinion may be obtained by contacting King Transcription Service at

1

973-237-6080.

Case 2:11-cv-01483-FSH -PS Document 10 Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 71
shall be prepared to provide copies of the responsive information to parties who enter

appearances in this case; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request that this Court enter orders concerning who

bears the costs or to compel an internet service provider to comply before the subpoenas are

served is denied.

s/Patty Shwartz

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01483-FSH -PS Document 10 Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 72
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15760]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-70,701]


Zebra Technologies, Inc., 333 Corporate Woods Parkway, Vernon 
Hills, IL; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on May 28, 2009 in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Zebra 
Technologies, Inc., Vernon Hills, Illinois.
    The petitioning group of workers is covered by an earlier petition 
(TA-W-70,463) filed on May 22, 2009 that is the subject of an ongoing 
investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. 
Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no 
purpose, and the investigation under this petition has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-15760 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
#### Harol Rodrigo Suarez GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America; Bureau of Prisons; Warden, RCDC III; Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 10-50575

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 11, 2012.

Harol Rodrigo Suarez Garcia, Pecos, TX, pro se.

Gary Layton Anderson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Harol Rodrigo Suarez Garcia, former federal prisoner # 29213-016, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging his exclusion from rehabilitation programs and halfway houses. As Garcia has been released from Bureau of Prisons custody, we grant Respondents’ motion to dismiss the appeal as moot and dismiss the appeal as moot. *See Calderon v. Moore,*518 U.S. 149, 150, 116 S.Ct. 2066, 135 L.Ed.2d 453 (1996). Respondents’ alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is denied as unnecessary.

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME DENIED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



In connection with the quarterly report of Vampt America, Inc. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the “Report”), I, Ian Toews, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 Registrant.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Dated: August 20, 2012 |                                                           
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------
|                       |                                                           
|By:                    | /s/ Ian Toews                                             
|                       | Ian Toews                                                 
|                       | Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, Treasurer and Director
Exhibit
        32.2
 
 Certification
        of the Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
        Act of 2002
 
 The
        undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-KSB
        filed by
        Weststar Financial Services Corporation (the “Issuer”) for the year ended
        December 31, 2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
        or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information
        contained
        in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
        condition and results of operations of the Issuer on the dates and for the
        periods presented therein.
 
 
 Date:   March
                  17, 2008
              /s/
                  Randall C. HallRandall
                  C. HallChief
                  Financial and Principal Accounting Officer
#### In re Stan CIPKOWSKI.

No. 2012-1552.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 14, 2013.

B. Aaron Schulman, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, of Alexandria, VA, argued for the appellant.

Lore A. Unt, Associate Solicitor, United States Patent & Trademark Office, of Alexandria, VA, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor, and Kristi L.R. Sawert, Associate Solicitor.

LOURIE, PLAGER, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
VGR-12.31.12-EX10.40




FIRST AMENDMENT TO OFFICE LEASE




FIRST AMENDMENT TO OFFICE LEASE (“Amendment”), dated as of the 12th day of November 2012, by and between Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation ("Tenant") and Frost Real Estate Holdings LLC, a Florida limited liability company ("Landlord"). 


WI TN E S S E T H:


WHEREAS, Landlord and Tenant entered into that certain Office Lease dated September 10, 2012 (the “Lease”); and




WHEREAS, the parties wish to modify the terms of the Lease, effective as of November 12, 2012, as more particularly set forth below.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:


1.The recitals set forth above are true and correct and by this reference are incorporated herein in their entirety. All capitalized terms contained in this Amendment that are not otherwise defined herein shall, for the purposes hereof, have the same meanings as are ascribed to them in the Lease.


2.Section 1.7 of the Lease, entitled “Commencement Date:” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced by the following: 


“The earlier of (i) the date Tenant completes construction and occupies the Premises or (ii) May 12, 2012.  Tenant will be permitted to have access to the Premises in advance of the Commencement Date, provided that such access and utilization by Tenant of the Premises shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Lease, excluding the obligation to pay rent prior to the Commencement Date”


3.     Miscellaneous.


(a)       As modified by this Amendment, the Lease remains in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed. 


(b)      The covenants, agreements, terms and conditions contained in this Amendment shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and, except as otherwise provided in the Lease as amended hereby, their respective legal successors and assigns.


(c)       This Amendment may not be changed orally. Changes may be effected only by written instrument signed by both Landlord and Tenant.  In the event of a conflict between this Amendment and the Lease, this Amendment shall control to the extent of any such conflict.













IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first above written. 


	
			
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	LANDLORD:

	 
	 
	Frost Real Estate Holdings, LLC a Florida limited liability company

	 
	 
	/s/ Steven D. Rubin

	 
	 
	Name: Steven D. Rubin

	 
	 
	Title: Vice President

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	TENANT:

	 
	 
	Vector Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation

	 
	 
	/s/ Marc N. Bell

	 
	 
	Name: Marc N. Bell

	 
	 
	Title: Vice President & General Counsel

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 







2