alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 6, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00098-CV

RYAN GALLAGHER, Appellant

V.

COLLIN COUNTY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 416-00049-2020

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 3, 2020 motion seeking a “waiver of 

transcript fees”. Although appellant states in its motion that there is an “affidavit 

of Indigency on Record”, the record before this Court does not show that he has 

complied with rule 145 of the rules of civil procedure. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145. 

Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion seeking waiver of transcript fees.

Also before the Court is appellant’s March 3, 2020 motion seeking an 

extension of time to file his brief on the merits. Although the appellate record has 
not been filed and is not due until March 23rd, appellant filed a brief on February 

18th. Because appellant’s brief is not yet due, we DENY his extension motion as 

premature. On the Court’s own motion, we STRIKE appellant’s brief filed on 

February 18th. Appellant shall file his brief on the merits WITHIN THIRTY 

DAYS after the record is complete. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(2). We caution 

appellant that his brief must comply with the requirements set forth in rule 38.1 of 

the rules of appellate procedure. See id. 38.1. 

/s/ KEN MOLBERG 

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

**Report of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

The Trust & SecuritiesServices department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche

Bank TrustCompany Americas:

 

Wehave examined management’s assessment, included in the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that theTrust & Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas(collectively the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteriaset forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’sRegulation AB for the Honda Auto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction, the Honda Auto Receivables2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction and the Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securitiestransaction (the “Platform”), except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii),1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performswith respect to the Platform, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2016. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances. Managementis responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Ourexamination was conducted in accordance with the attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (UnitedStates) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company*’*s compliance with the servicingcriteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examinationincluded testing selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activitiesrelated to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions andservicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determinewhether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculatedor reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. Webelieve that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determinationon the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessmentthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2016, is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

May 27, 2016
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20000]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15295; UTAH Disaster Number UT-00051 Declaration 
of Economic Injury]


Administrative Declaration of an Economic Injury Disaster for the 
State of Utah

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
declaration for the State of Utah, dated 09/11/2017.
    Incident: Brian Head Fire.
    Incident Period: 06/17/2017 through 07/11/2017.

DATES: Issued on 09/11/2017.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 06/11/2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury 
disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Garfield, Iron

Contiguous Counties:
    Utah: Beaver, Kane, Piute, San Juan, Washington, Wayne
    Nevada: Lincoln

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      3.215
 Available Elsewhere.........................................
Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere..      2.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 152950.
    The States which received an EIDL Declaration # are Utah, Nevada.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Linda E. McMahon,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-20000 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 179 (Monday, September 18, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43515]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19798]


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

 ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION


Notice of 108th Commission Meeting

    A notice by the U.S. Arctic Research Commission on 10/10/2017.
    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 108th meeting in Anchorage, AK, on October 10, 2017. The 
business sessions, open to the public, will convene at 8:00 a.m. at the 
Hotel Captain Cook, 939 W 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK 99501.
    The Agenda items include:

(1) Call to order and approval of the agenda
(2) Approval of the minutes from the 106th meeting
(3) Commissioners and staff reports
(4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research activities

    The meeting will focus on reports and updates relating to programs 
and research projects affecting Alaska and the greater Arctic.
    The Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 (Title I Pub. L. 98-373) 
and the Presidential Executive Order on Arctic Research (Executive 
Order 12501) dated January 28, 1985, established the United States 
Arctic Research Commission.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the 
contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in 
advance of the meeting.
    Contact person for further information: Kathy Farrow, 
Communications Specialist, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-
0111 or TDD 703-306-0090.

    Dated: September 1, 2017.
Kathy Farrow,
Communications Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2017-19798 Filed 9-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Gary Dean Campbell, * From the 142nd District Court

of Midland County,

Trial Court No. CR48731.

Vs. No. 11-22-00033-CR * April 20, 2023

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J. 

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgments below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgments of the trial court are in all things affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

CALIPER LIFESCIENCES, INC.

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Caliper Life Sciences, Inc.. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, E. Kevin Hrusovsky,President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to therequirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, tothe best of my knowledge, that:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theExchange Act; and

 

(2) The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/ E. KEVIN HRUSOVSKY                 |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | E. Kevin Hrusovsky                     |
|   | President and Chief  Executive Officer |

 

 

Date: May 10, 2006

 

1

----
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2014

No. 04-14-00683-CR

Ex Parte Robert GOMEZ,

Appellant

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR1918

Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding

O RDER

This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of habeas corpus based on a claim of double 

jeopardy. Appellant’s brief, which was filed on November 19, 2014, includes citations to the 

reporter’s record. However, no reporter’s record was filed in this appeal. On December 3, 2014, 

the State filed a motion to abate this appeal, arguing that the reporter’s record is necessary to this 

appeal. 

The State’s motion to abate this appeal is GRANTED. All appellate deadlines are 

suspended until the reporter’s record is filed. 

We ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this Court within ten days of the date of 

this order that he has contacted the court reporter and arranged for the filing of the reporter’s 

record in this Court.

The State’s brief is due no later than twenty days after the reporter’s record is filed in this 

Court.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0606 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CORY MICHAEL KELLY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 24, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 18 2022

07/18/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0606
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00131

- CR

IN RE DAVID R. GRIFF ITH

Original Proceeding

ORDER ON REHEARING

Appellant has filed a Motion for Rehearing.

Having considered the motion, Appellant’s motion for rehearing is denied by the

Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed July 11 , 2018

Do not publish
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**ALLEN FEINGOLD,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**ELIZABETH BRODY AND MARJORIE S. YELON,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 39 EAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 2nd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allowa nce of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
EXHIBIT 99.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Axtive Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Graham C. Beachum II, Chief Executive
Officer of Axtive Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ Graham C. Beachum II

Graham C. Beachum II

Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer



August 25, 2003



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §
1350

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Axtive Corporation, (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, David N. Pilotte, Chief Financial Officer
of Axtive Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:



| | (1) |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ David N. Pilotte

David N. Pilotte

Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary



August 25, 2003



A signed
original of these written statements required by Section 906 has been provided to Axtive Corporation and will be retained by Axtive Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



These Certifications shall not be deemed to be filed or part of the referenced
Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB or incorporated by reference into any of the registrants filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filing to such report.
[945 NYS2d 838]

#### Preferred Services, as Assignee of Oreste Civil, Respondent, v Country Wide Insurance Company, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

April 13, 2012

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jaffe & Koumourdas,*LLP, New York City *(Ariel S. Lichterman*of counsel), for appellant. *Gina Gleicher*and *Leon Kucherovsky,*New York City, for respondent.

*67OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Order entered April 9, 2010, modified by granting defendant’s motion to the extent of reducing the amount of the judgment entered against it to the aggregate sum of $1,251; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

The parties agree that the underlying no-fault first-party action was validly settled, but join issue as to the intended amount of the settlement. The facts leading up to the settlement are undisputed and may be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiff, through counsel, drafted and presented a proposed settlement agreement, dated October 21, 2008, which set forth all material terms of the settlement and provided, in paragraph 4, that “[t]his case is not settled unless this stipulation is signed by a representative of defendant and faxed back to [plaintiff’s attorney].” Upon receipt of plaintiff’s proposal, defense counsel made and initialed several handwritten changes to paragraph 2 of the document — addressing the consequences of a payment default on defendant’s part — with the changes designed to extend the time allotted to defendant to comply with the agreement’s payment terms and, more importantly here, to reduce defendant’s payment obligations in the event it failed to comply. So far as shown, plaintiff voiced no objection to the modifications proposed by defendant nor took any other action in the case for a full six months after defense counsel marked up and returned the stipulation, until March 2009, when plaintiff entered judgment in accordance with the original terms of the stipulation favorable to it.

Given the particular facts and circumstances of this case, and since plaintiff itself acknowledges that the parties’ correspondence yielded an enforceable settlement agreement, we conclude that plaintiff, through “acquiescent conduct” *(Eldor Contr. Corp. v County of Nassau,*272 AD2d 509, 509 [2000]) — including its election to forgo any further litigation activity on its no-fault claim — accepted and is bound by the stipulation’s revised terms *(see Minelli Constr. Co., Inc. v Volmar Constr., Inc.,*82 AD3d 720, 722 [2011]). Accordingly, the amount of the consent judgment issued below must be reduced to the stipulated principal sum of $950, together with the stipulated attorney’s fees ($196) and costs ($105) due plaintiff.

We note finally that the judgment at issue “is not a default judgment as that term is used in pleading and practice, and [the *68motion court’s] application of law relating to vacating default judgments was erroneous” *(Furgang v Epstein,*106 AD2d 609, 610 [1984]).

Torres, J.E, Shulman and Hunter, Jr., JJ., concur.
114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 19 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns 

3 on any day from Thursday, June 25, 2015, through Fri4 day, July 3, 2015, on a motion offered pursuant to this 

5 concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his des6 ignee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 

7 Tuesday, July 7, 2015, or such other time on that day 

8 as may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee 

9 in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of 

10 any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 

11 resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the 

12 House adjourns on any legislative day from Thursday, 

13 June 25, 2015, through Friday, July 3, 2015, on a motion 

14 offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Ma15 jority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 

16 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7, 2015, or until the time of any 

17 reassembly pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolu18 tion, whichever occurs first. 
2 

†SCON 19 ES 

1 SEC. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his 

2 designee, after concurrence with the Minority Leader of 

3 the Senate, shall notify the Members of the Senate to reas4 semble at such place and time as he may designate if, in 

5 his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

6 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

7 when the Senate adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

8 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

9 the Senate shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

10 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

11 SEC. 3. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after con12 sultation with the Minority Leader of the House, shall no13 tify the Members of the House to reassemble at such place 

14 and time as he may designate if, in his opinion, the public 

15 interest shall warrant it. 

16 (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), 

17 when the House adjourns on a motion offered pursuant 

18 to this subsection by its Majority Leader or his designee, 

19 the House shall again stand adjourned pursuant to the 

20 first section of this concurrent resolution. 

Passed the Senate June 24, 2015. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 19 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess 

of Representatives. of the Senate and an adjournment of the House
#### Craig BATLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HOMESEEKERS.COM, INC. d/b/a Realigent, Inc., Realigent Development, Inc., Genstar Media, a division of Homeseekers.Com, Inc., and Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co., Defendants-Appellees. and Terry Pullan, a citizen of California, Defendant.

No. 07-55563.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 4, 2008.*

Filed June 17, 2008.

Michael J. Lancaster, Esq., Stocker & Lancaster, LLP, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Michael J. Rubino, Esq., Law Offices of Michael J. Rubino, Laguna Beach, CA, for Homeseekers.Com, Inc., Genstar Media.

Evan B. Sorensen, Esq., Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney *&*Priess, Los Angeles, CA, for Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co.

*637Ronald G. Rosenberg, Esq., Rosenberg & Koffman, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ALDISERT** and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

Appellant Craig Batley raises a number of issues on appeal stemming from two orders issued by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. We agree with the District Court that the United States Bankruptcy Court was the proper court to determine whether Batley’s claim against Homeseekers.com had been discharged in bankruptcy and whether the claim could be reactivated following completion of Home-seekers.com’s bankruptcy proceedings. We also agree that the evidence in this case shows that Homeseekers.com did not assign the insurance policies at issue to Batley, and therefore Gulf Underwriters Insurance Co. has no liability to Batley.

AFFIRMED.

***

 ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.