alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed September 28, 2017. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-16-00099-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF ANDRZEJ ADAMSKI AND 

OKSANA ADAMSKI

On Appeal from the 328th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-DCV-199667

ORDER

This court issued its opinion and judgment in this case on July 25, 2017. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 49.1 provides for the filing of a motion for 

rehearing within fifteen days after a court of appeals’ judgment or order is 

rendered. Tex. R. App. Proc. 49.1. Appellant filed a motion for rehearing on 

August 24, 2017, more than 15 days after this court’s judgment was rendered. 

“A court of appeals may extend the time for filing a motion for rehearing or 

en banc reconsideration if a party files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) no 

later than 15 days after the last date for filing the motion.” Tex. R. App. P. 49.8. A 
party seeking an extension of time in the court of appeals is required to file a 

motion specifically stating the facts that reasonably explain the need for an 

extension. Rios v. Calhoon, 889 S.W.2d 257, 259 (Tex. 1994); see also Tex. R.

App. P. 10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motion to extend time to include facts relied on to 

reasonably explain the need for an extension). No motion for extension of time was 

filed in this case, however. 

The Texas Supreme Court has consistently treated minor procedural 

mistakes with leniency to preserve appellate rights. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 

S.W.2d 615, 616-17 (Tex. 1997) (implying extension of time when a party perfects 

an appeal in good faith within the 15-day period for filing an extension). Thus, a

motion for extension of time can be implied when a motion for rehearing is filed 

within the 15-day period for filing a motion for extension of time if the appellant 

thereafter files a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b)(1) that contains a reasonable 

explanation to support the late filing. See Houser v. McElveen, 243 S.W.3d 646, 

647 (Tex. 2008); see also Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Ctr. Assoc., Ltd., 974 

S.W.2d 805, 807 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.) (implying 

extension but requiring reasonable explanation). 

Accordingly, unless appellant files with the clerk of this court a motion that 

complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.5(b)(1) and provides a 

reasonable explanation for the late filing of the party’s motion for rehearing within 

10 days of the date of this order, the court will deny the motion for rehearing as 

untimely.

PER CURIAM
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: July 24, 2014 517683

________________________________ In the Matter of CLARENCE GOURDINE, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ALBERT PRACK, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: June 9, 2014 Before: Peters, P.J., Stein, Rose, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ.

__________ Clarence Gourdine, Dannemora, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner purportedly sent a letter to his mother in which he threatened to harm her caregivers upon his release from prison if they failed to assist her in obtaining money for him. One of the agencies involved in providing that care alerted officials to the letter, and petitioner was thereafter charged in a misbehavior report with violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting threats and extortion. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, he was found guilty as charged. His-2- 517683

administrative appeal was unsuccessful, and this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued. We confirm. The misbehavior report, combined with the hearing testimony, confidential materials, the Hearing Officer's comparison of writing samples produced by petitioner's typewriter to the letter in question and the letter itself, provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt (see Matter of Lafferty v Fischer, 61 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2009]; Matter of Patsalos v Coombe, 228 AD2d 984, 985 [1996]). Contrary to petitioner's argument, he was not improperly deprived of the right to call his mother as a witness inasmuch as her testimony would have been irrelevant to the charges (see Matter of McKinley v Goord, 47 AD3d 974, 974 [2008]). Petitioner's remaining arguments have been examined and found to lack merit. Peters, P.J., Stein, Rose, Egan Jr. and Devine, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
#### McCloskey *v.*Hamill.

*(Circuit Court, S. D. New York.*

February 19, 1883.)

. Patent Law—Dismissal oe Bill.

Where the subject of the patent in controversy in this case has been decided by the circuit court for this district not to be patentable, such decision is conclusive on this court, and the bill will be dismissed.

*James G. Gloyd*and *Wm. J. Underwood, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Howard A. Sperry,*for defendant.

Shipman, J.

This is a bill in equity to restrain the alleged infringement of letters patent No. 220,767, which were issued to John MeOloskey on October 21, 1879, for an improved plumbers’ trap of soft metal. This patent has been twice the subject of examination by Judge Wheeler, in the circuit court for this district. *McCloskey*v. *Du Bois,*8 Fed. Rep. 710, and 9 Fed. Rep. 38. The facts which the plaintiff proved upon the second hearing are the same which he relies upon in this case. Judge Wheeler’s opinion was that the alleged invention, which is the subject of this patent, is not patentable. That must be taken to be the law of this circuit until either a state of facts is proved which shall present a different case, or until the conclusion of law upon the facts as now shown shall be overruled by the supreme court. My own examination of the case leads me to concur in the result which Judge Wheeler reached. The intention of the plaintiff in bringing this bill was probably to present the case in such a clear and accurate manner that the conclusion of Judge Wheeler might be properly examined by the supreme court.

The plea is sustained and the bill is dismissed.
#### Gary W. Conklin, Appellant, v Metro North Commuter Railroad Company, Respondent.

Submitted December 17, 2007;

decided February 7, 2008

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00581-CV

Dean DAVENPORT, Dillon Water Resources, Ltd., 5D Drilling and Pump Service, Inc., f/k/a 

Davenport Drilling & Pump Service, Inc., 5D Water Resources, LLC f/k/a Davenport Oper., 

LLC, Water Exploration Co., Ltd., WAD, Inc., Water Investment Leasing Company,,

Appellants

v.

Tom HALL, et al.,

Appellees

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-03086

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The notification of late record is noted. The deadline for filing the reporter’s record is 

suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 24th day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report (the "Report")
of Digerati Technologies, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 30, 2016, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Arthur L. Smith, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and result of operations of the Company.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|By | /s/
    Arthur L. Smith                   | 
|-- | ----------------------------------------- | 
|   | Arthur
    L. Smith                       | 
|   | President
    and Chief Executive Officer | 
|   |                                           | 
|   | June
    2, 2016                          |
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 14, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 8, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail Contract 355 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-197, CP2017-298.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19472 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FILED AS A PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED 
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTELRY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                            659
<SECURITIES>                                      560
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,069) 
<INVENTORY>                                    39,314
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               58,870
<PP&E>                                         35,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,601)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 81,579
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          26,409
<BONDS>                                         5,745
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           3,089
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          392
<OTHER-SE>                                     45,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   81,579
<SALES>                                        45,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               45,077
<CGS>                                          36,012
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  36,012
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                9,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (432)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (618)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      122
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (496)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.15)
        


</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

# mtntteb**~tates** 

# qcourtof§ppeaIs fortbejf

# eberaIqctrcutt

MELISSA L. BURNETT, Petitioner, 

### v. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Respondent.

2012-3176 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in case no. CH1221110614-W-1. 

### ON MOTION

ORDER Melissa L. Burnett moves for leave to file a Certificate ofInterest. The court also construes Burnett's October 25, 2012 letter as a motion for an extension of time, until November 25,2012, to file her informalbrief. Because Burnett is a pro se appellant she does not need to file a certificate of interest. See Federal Circuit Rules 26.1 and 47.4. Case: 12-3176 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 11/27/2012MELISSA BURNETT v. Hun Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: 2

(1) The motion to file a certificate ofinterest is denied as moot. (2) The motion for an extension oftime is granted to the extent that Burnett's informal briefis due November 26,2012. FOR THE COURT /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk 

### s27 Case: 12-3176 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 11/27/2012
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 2454

RUDOLPH CLINE

- THOMAS,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ALVIN KEELS, JR.; GLOBAL MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
Defendants

- Appellees,
and
CORPORATE ATHLETIC MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 2:13

- cv
- 00204

- AWA

- LRL )

Submitted : September 28, 2018 Decided: November 20, 2018

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Judge Agee dissents.

Riley H. Ross III, ROSS LEGAL PRACTICE, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Alvin Keels, Jr., Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rudolph Cline

- Thomas appeals the district court’s order dismissing his case against Alvin Keels, Jr., for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). He contends that , in considering the relevant four

- factor test, see Hillig v. Comm ’ r , 916 F.2d 171, 174 (4th Cir. 1990) , the court abused its discretion in doing so. We affirm

. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court ’ s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ballard v. Carlson , 882 F.2d 93, 96 (4th Cir. 1989). “A district court abuses its
discretion when it ac ts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises,
or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard , 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Under the abuse of discretion standard, [we] may not
substitute [our] judgment for that of the district court; rather, [ we ] must determine whether the [district] court’s exercise of discretion, considering the law an d the facts, was arbitrary or capricious.” United States v. Vidacak , 553 F.3d 344, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal , we conclude that , based
on the Hillig factors, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Cline

Thomas’ case against Keels for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions a re adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED3 AGEE, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I conclude that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the case pursuant to Rule 41(b) . Accordingly, I would vacate the district court’s order and remand for further proceedings.
## THEA~TORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS

Honorable Zollle C. Steakley Opinion 290.UW-91 Secretary of State Capitol Station Re: Canthe Secretary of Austin, Texas

. State authorize the use of the Great Beal of Texas as a lounge car decoration ona newTexas Dear Sir: Zephyr passenger train?

This is in response to a request concerning the use of the Great Seal of Texas in which you asked the question, substantially as follows : Does the Secretary of State have the authority

to authorize the use of the Great Seal of Texas as a lounge car decoration on a newTexas Zephyr passenger train? Section 1 of Chapter 350, Acts of the 54th Legislature, which has been codlfled~as Article 157a, Vernon’s Penal Code, reads in part as follows:

‘Art. 157a. Advertising andother prohibited uses of Great Seal of Texas.

“IJoperson, firm, or corporation, or any agent, servant, representative, employee, or receiver, of any firm or corporation, shall use any facsimile, imitation, label, trademark, deslkn, device, imprint or form of the &eat Seal of Texas for the purpose of advertising or giving publicity to anygoods, wares, or merchandise or any commercial undertaking, f trade or commercial purpose. . . .“(i&hiiitnadded) q e It Is our opinion that the use of the Great Seal of Texas In the mannerset forth In your question clearly falls within the prohibition of the’Act which denies the u8e of the Seal for the purpose of advertising or giving publicity to any commercial undertaking or for any trade or commercial purpoao. For this reason your question mustbe answered in the negative.Honorable Zollle C. Sterkley, Pwe 2 w-91

SUMMARY
Seation 3;of Chapter 350, Acts of the 54th Legislature, which ‘

. has been codified as Article 157a, Vernon’s Penal Code, grohlbits the we of the Great Seal of Texas ,as

### a louuge oar decoration on a newTexas Zephyr psssenger train.

Yours very truly,

WCR:pf;rh AFTROVIP): 0P1I?10Ip

COMMITTIm: 8. GradyChandleP,

Chsirmn J. C; J&vie, Jr. JohnReeve8
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 260 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 260

            Honoring the life and legacy of Calvin G. Moret.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2015

   Mr. Vitter (for himself and Mr. Cassidy) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
            Honoring the life and legacy of Calvin G. Moret.

Whereas Calvin G. Moret was born on August 15, 1925, in New Orleans, Louisiana;
Whereas, in 1943, Calvin G. Moret joined the Tuskegee Airmen and completed his 
        advanced training in P-51 Mustangs;
Whereas the Tuskegee Airmen were the first African-American military airmen;
Whereas, on November 20, 1944, Calvin G. Moret graduated as a Flight Officer as 
        part of class 44-I-SE in the Tuskegee Airmen program;
Whereas, according to the Veterans History Project of the Library of Congress, 
        Calvin G. Moret served as a flight instructor;
Whereas Calvin G. Moret was a recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal, 
        presented in the rotunda of the United States Capitol, for his service 
        to the United States;
Whereas Calvin G. Moret was the last surviving Tuskegee Airman pilot in 
        Louisiana;
Whereas Calvin G. Moret contributed oral histories to the collection of the 
        National WWII Museum;
Whereas, on June 29, 2013, the Urban League of Greater New Orleans presented 
        Calvin G. Moret with the Whitney M. Young Legacy Award;
Whereas, in 2014, Calvin G. Moret became the fifth honorary member of the Black 
        Pilots of America; and
Whereas Calvin G. Moret was a distinguished speaker for the National WWII Museum 
        at major exhibits, including the ``Fighting for the Right to Fight: 
        African American Experiences in World War II'' exhibit: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) honors the life of Calvin G. Moret, who was dedicated 
        to serving the community and recording the experiences of the 
        members of the Tuskegee Airmen;
            (2) recognizes the lasting contributions made by Calvin G. 
        Moret to World War II educational programming and the National 
        WWII Museum; and
            (3) requests that the Secretary of the Senate prepare an 
        official copy of this resolution for presentation to the family 
        of Calvin G. Moret.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1

     Computation of fully-diluted earnings per share, using
21,901,665 weighted average shares outstanding.

                                                    Amount         Per Share
Net income                                          $16,295,000      $.74

Calculation of number of weighted average
   fully-diluted shares:
Proceeds from assumed exercise of options           $18,012,948
Divided by quarter ended March 31, 1997
   average closing price of common stock                 $26.65
Equals number of shares assumed purchased 
   under treasury stock method                          675,908
Number of shares assumed purchased through
   exercise of options                                  890,000
Less number of shares assumed purchased
   under treasury stock method                          675,908
Equals additional shares assumed outstanding
   for fully-diluted earnings per share computation     214,092
Plus weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, primary EPS calculation              21,687,573
Equals weighted average number of shares
   outstanding, fully-diluted EPS calculations       21,901,665