alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Filed 8/30/96 TENTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD NAGOL, Plaintiff - Appellant, vs. LUNA, COUNTY OF; ERNEST BOWEN, Officer, Lieutenant; JAMES CLAY, Sheriff; MANUEL DV SAUCEDO, Judge; FRED GIFFORD, Judge, Defendants - Appellees. No. 95-2243 (D.C. No. CIV 94-961) (D.N.M.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. **
Plaintiff-Appellant Richard Nagol challenges the district court’s injunction enjoining him from filing civil or criminal proceedings, except under certain conditions. In entering its order, the district court took judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Nagol has a- 2 -

“lengthy history of filing meritless claims.” Aplee. Supp. App. doc. 1 (D. Ct. Order filed Oct. 24, 1995). Specifically, Mr. Nagol had filed six suits within five months. Mr. Nagol’s litigious nature led the state court to impose a similar restriction on him. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), a court has the power to protect itself from the deleterious impact of repetitive, unfounded pro se litigation. Tripati v. Beaman , 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); accord Werner v. Utah , 32 F.3d 1446, 1449 (10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam); Winslow v. Hunter (In re Winslow ), 17 F.3d 314, 315-16 (10th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). “[I]njunctions are proper where the litigant’s abusive and lengthy history is properly set forth.” Tripati , 878 F.2d at 353. In restricting a litigant’s access, the court must provide guidelines as to what the litigant must do to file suit. Id. at 354; accord Werner , 32 F.3d at 1449; Winslow , 17 F.3d at 316-17. In this case, both conditions were satisfied. The district court’s narrowly written requirement that Mr. Nagol be represented by counsel or have prior judicial approval to file suits is permissible under the circumstances. See Tripati , 878 F.2d at 353; accord Werner , 32 F.3d at 1449; Winslow , 17 F.3d at 316-17. AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge
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.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice: (17-063)]

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of charter of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to sections 14(b)(1) and 9(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), and after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, U.S. General Services Administration, the NASA Acting Administrator has determined that renewal of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on NASA by law. The renewed charter is for a two-year period ending on August 15, 2019.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ms. Carol Hamilton, Designated Federal Officer, Office of International and Interagency Relations, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546; phone (202) 358-1857; email                         *carol.j.hamilton@nasa.gov.*

Patricia D. Rausch,

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

[FR Doc. 2017-19406 Filed 9-12-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6517
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORTEZ ANTOINNE PROPST, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-91-119, CA-01-60-3-2-MU) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 18, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ortez Antoinne Propst, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Ortez Antoinne Propst seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Propst , Nos. CR-91-119; CA01-60-3-2-MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 18, 2003). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
     (AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

I, William S. Creekmuir, as Chief Financial Officer of Simmons Bedding Company
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:

      (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
   March 26, 2005 (the "Report"), being filed with the U.S. Securities and
   Exchange Commission on the date hereof, 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
   material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
   Company.

Date: May 10, 2005                     /s/ William S. Creekmuir
                                       ---------------------------------
                                       Name: William S. Creekmuir
                                       Title: Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Simmons Bedding Company and will be retained by Simmons Bedding
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

                                       36
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 20

- 00116

- CR

DENZEL DREDON JACKSON , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 8th District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 1927324

Be fore Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 O R D E R

Denzel Dredon Jackson has filed an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the

8th Judicial District Court of H opkins County. Jackson was represented by appointed counsel at
trial. Although appointed trial counsel filed a notice of appeal on Jackson’s behalf, the tri al court
has since granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. T here is no indication in the clerk’s record that

new counsel was appointed to represent Jackson on appeal

.
In light of these circumstances, we abate this case to the trial court so th at it may conduct
whatever hearings are necessary to make the following determinations: (1) whether Jackson still
desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, (2) whether Jacks on re mains ind i gent and entitled to
the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. If the trial court determine s that Jackson

remains indigent, then it shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal.
The trial court may enter any orders necessa ry to implemen t these directives. Any
hearing shall be conducted by the trial court within fifteen days of the date of this order. Appropriate orders and findings shall be sent to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s
record within ten days of the date of t h e hearing contemplated by this order. The reporter’ record

of a ny hearing shall be filed with this Court within ten days of the date of the hearing
contemplated by this order.
All appellate timetables are stayed and will resume on our rece ipt o f the sup p lemental
appellate record.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Dat e: December 9 , 20 20
Fiscal Year 2012 Long-Term Equity Grant award



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 Non-Employee Director Stock Option Grants 
 On December 12, 2011, the Nominating and
Governance Committee of the Board of Directors recommended, and on December 13, 2011 the Board of Directors approved, the fiscal year 2012 non-employee director stock option grants in the amount and upon the terms and conditions set forth
below. 
 General Terms of Grant: 
  

	 	•	 	 Form of grant: Non-qualified stock options. 


  

	 	•	 	 Term and vesting of stock options: The stock option grants vest equally over a 3 year period and have a 7 year term.



  

	 	•	 	 Grant date: December 13, 2011. 


  

	 	•	 	 Exercise Price for Stock Options: $37.40 


  

	 	•	 	 Number of stock options: 5,000
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness Corporation (the“Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 19, 2007 (the “Periodic Report”), I, Gregg O. Lehman, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     The Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and     The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ Gregg O. Lehman   Gregg O. Lehman   President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of

-- Botach Tactical Under ContractNo. W911S7-10-F-0055 APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: ) ) ) ) )

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: ASBCA No. 60234

Mr. Chushim Botach Raymond M. Saunders, Esq.

Army ChiefTrial Attorney LTC Timothy A. Furin, JA

Trial Attorney ORDER OF DISMISSAL By email dated 25 September 2015, Mr. Chushim Botach filed a notice ofappeal which the Board docketed as ASBCA No. 60234. The email indicates it was sent from chushim@botach.com. In response to the Board's 28 September 2015 Order, which directed Mr. Chushim Botach to show that Botach Tactical was represented in this appeal by a person meeting the criteria ofBoard Rule 15, Mr. Chushim Botach submitted a 13 October 2015 email in which he stated: "BarKochba Botach is the owner ofBotach Tactical. He can be reached at Bk@botach.com." Mr. Bar Kochba Botach has not filed a written notice ofappearance with the Board, as is required by Board Rule l5(a). The Board has received no responses from Mr. Bar Kochba Botach to Orders sent via email to bk@botach.com on 10 November and 4 December 2015. On 2 February 2016, the Board informed Messrs. Botach that ifBotach Tactical intended to pursue this appeal, a person meeting the requirements ofBoard Rule 15(a) should file a written notice ofappearance with the Board no laterthan 19 February 2016. The Board Order was sent via email to Mr. Bar Kochba Botach at bk@botach.com and to Mr. Chushim Botach at chushim@botach.com, and also via USPS. No response was received by the Board. By Order dated 24 February 2016, sentto the two email addresses set forth above, the Board again directed Messrs. Botach to file a written notice ofappearance ofa representative meeting the requirements ofBoard Rule 15(a) within 14 days ofthe date of the Order. The Order stated that ifBotach Tactical did not comply with the Order, the Board intended to dismiss the appeal without further notice to the parties. The Board has received no response.Without a representative meeting the requirements ofBoardRule 15, the Board is unable to proceed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Dated: 15 March 2016

I concur 

# JVK**~f~-::L**

# __

# i RICHARD SHACKLEFORD Administrative Judge Vice Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals 

# d2?**~** 

# efiz{-**~tMPL~** Administrative Judge Acting Chairman Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals

I concur

J. REID PROUTY Administrative Judge Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals

I certify thatthe foregoing is a true copy ofthe Order ofDismissal ofthe Armed Services Board ofContractAppeals in ASBCA No. 60234, Appeal ofBotach Tactical, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. Dated:

2 JEFFREY D. GARDIN Recorder, ArmedServices Board ofContractAppeals 

# I
Exhibit 32.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S. C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of Black Cactus Global, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended April 30, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Jeremy Towning, Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 Company.  Date: June 29, 2020/s/ Jeremy Towning
Jeremy Towning
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
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 of ATSI Communications, Inc. on Form
10-QA/2 for the period ending October 31, 2002, 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 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
March 1, 2004




<PAGE>
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 T rial 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’ judg ment 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 ban c 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. Aparty seeking an extension of time in the court of appeals is required to file a

motion specif

ically 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
mis takes with leniency to preserv e 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 filin g 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. Greenp ark 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
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2300 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2300

 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of 
 appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly 
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the 
                            Paralympic Team.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 22, 2011

 Mr. Stutzman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of 
 appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly 
assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the 
                            Paralympic Team.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR PAYMENT OF 
              A MONTHLY ASSISTANCE ALLOWANCE TO DISABLED VETERANS 
              TRAINING OR COMPETING FOR THE PARALYMPIC TEAM.

    Section 322(d)(4) is amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting 
``2018''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 172 (Thursday, September 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 42347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19091]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. and its 
Continuation at the Conclusion of the Open Meeting on September 14, 
2017

PLACE:  999 E Street NW., Washington, DC

STATUS:  This Meeting Will Be Closed to the Public.

ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
    Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to 
have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed 
Commission action.
    Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:  Judith Ingram, Press Officer, 
Telephone: (202) 694-1220

Laura E. Sinram,
Acting Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-19091 Filed 9-5-17; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7293

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD R. WILLIAMS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-95-332-A, CA-98-1720-A)

Submitted: February 20, 2001 Decided: March 2, 2001

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Morris Rudolph Parker, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald R. Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-95-332-A;

CA-98-1720-A (E.D. Va. filed July 17, 2000; entered July 20, 2000).

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
TRACEY DEWRELL

, Appellant,

v.

TOM DEWRELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ESTATE OF GEORGE L. DEWRELL
, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTIO N FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 611 /1D13

- 4914

_____________________________/

Opinion filed July 16, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. Michael A. Flowers , Judge

. Tracey Dewrell

, pro se, Appellan t.

Susan L. Kelsey of Kelsey Appellate Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ. CONCUR.