alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 26, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00745-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.B., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-54975-2014

ORDER

On September 16, 2020, the Court informed Janet L. Dugger, Official Court 

Reporter for the 296th Judicial District Court, that the reporter’s record was 

overdue and directed her to file, within thirty days, the record, written verification 

no hearings were recorded, or written verification appellant had not requested the 

record. To date, Ms. Dugger has not complied. Accordingly, we ORDER Ms. 

Dugger to file the reporter’s record or requested verification no later than

November 9, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. 

Dugger and the parties.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30856

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RON CHRISTOPHER GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 96-CR-7 B

- - - - - - - - - -

June 4, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE’ and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ron Christopher Green appeals his sentence which was imposed

after he pleaded guilty to distribution of cocaine base. He

argues that the Government had to prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that the substance involved was in fact “crack” cocaine. 

Green fails to show that court’s sentence was clearly erroneous. 

United States v. Jackson, 22 F.3d 583, 584 (5th Cir. 1994). He

also argues that the district court erred when it departed from
No. 96-30856

- 2 -

the Sentencing Guidelines by reducing his base offense level by

one point, not two points. United States v. Alvarez, 51 F.3d 36,

39 (5th Cir. 1995). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the

record and AFFIRM.
Exhibit 32



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge, (i) the Form 10-QSB of South Street Financial Corp. (the
Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.



|                         | 
|------------------------ | 
|                         | 
|                         | 
|Date:    August 12, 2003 | 
|                         | 
|                         | 
|                         | 
|Date:    August 12, 2003 | 
|                         | 
|                         |
ex10-1.htm


Exhibit 10.1




 



  


 



	 	2207 Bridgepointe Parkway #250	 
	 	San Mateo, CA 94404	 





 




December 23, 2011







Dear Samir,







I am delighted to offer you the position of Controller, Director of Finance at Talon Therapeutics, Inc. You will report to Craig W. Carlson, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Your start date will be on or before January 9, 2012.







Your base salary will be $160,000 per year (gross, less legally required withholding and other required deductions, and any deductions that you voluntarily authorize in writing), paid semi-monthly.  In addition, you will be eligible for an annual performance-based cash bonus of up to 20% of your annualized base salary. The determination of your annual bonus will be made by the Chief Executive Officer and will be subject to approval by Talon's Board of Directors.







Effective upon the commencement of your employment with Talon, you will also be granted an option to purchase 75,000 shares of Talon stock that vest in 48 equal monthly installments over four years. The exercise price of the stock options will be equal to the closing price of Talon common stock, as reported on the OTC Bulletin Board, on the last business day prior to your first day of employment. Any other future stock options will be granted per guidelines then in place for all employees of the company, based on performance and contributions as determined by the company's Board of Directors.







Talon Therapeutics, lnc. provides its employees with a benefit package, paid medical, dental, life and disability programs, you will be eligible to participate in our 401k plan and Employee Stock Purchase Plan. You will be entitled to 3 weeks of vacation. This offer of employment is also conditioned upon your entry into an invention assignment, confidentiality and nonsolicitation agreement, in the company's standard form.







Your employment with Talon is for an indefinite term, and nothing in this Letter modifies your at-will employment relationship with the company.







Samir, I believe you will make significant contributions to Talon, and that we will in turn provide an environment where you will grow, learn and thrive.  The entire Talon team looks forward to you becoming a full-time Talon employee.







Sincerely yours,







/s/ Craig W. Carlson







Craig W. Carlson


Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer












Accepted: /s/ Samir Gharib                                                                           Date: December 26, 2011







Start Date: January 9, 2012
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 7741** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHARLES D. IZAC , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg
. John Preston Bailey , Chief District Judge. ( 3:02

- cr - 00058

- JPB

- JSK

- 1 )

Submitted : February 2 1 , 2013 Decided: February 25, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge
.
Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Charles D. Izac, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CU RIAM: Charles D. Izac appeals the district court ’s order denying relief on his motion for review of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. United Stat es v. Izac , No. 3:02

- cr - 00058

- JPB

- JSK

- 1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 5, 2012). To the extent that Izac intends for his motion for review of his sentence to be considered by this court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(A), we deny the motion as untimely. * We dispense wit h oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

* Although the appeal period in criminal cases is not jurisdictional, but rather a claim

- processing rule, Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 209

– 14 (2007); United States v. Urutyan , 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009), where, as here, review is sought more than five years after the entry of the judgment, we may exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. See United States v. Mitchell , 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).
#### Syz and others *v.*Redfield and others.

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

August 16, 1881.)

Practice — Exceptions to Referee’s Report.

Where amended exceptions to the report of the referee are not filed within, the time prescribed by the statute they will be overruled on motion.

Blatchford, C. J.

So much of the plaintiffs’ motion herein as moves “to overrule and exclude all defendants’ so-called amended exceptions to the referee’s report, originally filed herein on September 11, 1880,” must be granted. The order of reference of March 7, 1877, provides that “either party may, on the hearing, raise objections, and said referee shall decide thereon, and either may file exceptions to such decision of the referee within two days after the filing of the referee’s report. ” It does not provide for any exceptions to the report of the referee. If the exceptions to the report can be treated as if they were filed as exceptions to decisions of the referee on the hearing, there is no matter embraced in said amended exceptions to the referee’s report which relates to anything as to which the defendants raised objections before the referee on the hearing, on *800which he decided, except that relating to Syz, Irminger & Co., and as to that the exception was not filed within two days after the filing of the referee’s report. If any of the said amended exceptions to the referee’s report, other than that relating to Syz, Irminger & Co., are claimed to have been properly filed, aside from any authority therefor under said order of reference, it is plain that some of them relate to objections which, in order to be available, should have been taken before verdict, and therefore are improperly filed, because it is not shown that the objections and exceptions were taken before verdict, and that the rest of them could only be raised by an exception to the decision of -the court, made February 11,1861, and it does not appear that any such exception was ever taken, and it is too late now to take it.

I am also of opinion that the stipulation entered into between the treasury department and the attorneys for the plaintiffs in August, 1874, applies to this case in its present *status.*

No motion appears to be made in regard to the “exception to. referee’s decision.”
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Richard C. Sidoli, Appellant. John F. Hudacs, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[610 NYS2d 883]

—Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 27, 1993, which dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely.

The record reveals that claimant failed to file his appeal to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board within the 20-day period mandated by Labor Law § 621 (1). Accordingly, the Board properly dismissed claimant’s appeal as untimely. Given this result, the merits of claimant’s appeal are not properly before this Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 11, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00821

- CV

Larry LANGSTON

, Appellant

v.

Tom HAYDEN and Shirley Hayden,
Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019

- CV

- 0211
Honorable Bill Squires, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant ’ s brief was due to be filed by February 6, 2020. Neither the brief nor a motion

for extension of time has been filed. Appellant is therefore ORDERED to file, within fifteen
(15) days of the date of this order, his brief and a written response reasonably explaining: (1) his
failure to timely file a brief, and (2) why appellee is not significantly injured by appellant ’ s
failure to time ly file a brief. If appellant fail s to timely file a brief and the written response, we
will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a); see also T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if an appellant fails t o comply with a court order).

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



                           Telex Communications, Inc.
                           12000 Portland Avenue South
                           Burnsville, Minnesota 55337



                                 March 25, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C.  20549

         Re:  Letter to Commission Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen") has represented to us, by letter dated March 25, 2002,
that its audit of the financial statements of Telex Communications, Inc., for
the period ended December 31, 2001, was subject to Andersen's quality control
system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working
on the audit, availability of national office consultation and availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of
the audit.

                                Very truly yours,

                           Telex Communications, Inc.




                               Gregory W. Richter
                   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
# FIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 18-0597
STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee,
v. VAUGHN DAVID JAMES,

Defendant and Appellant. 

### MAY 10 

### 2022 BC3Wen Greenwood of Supreme Court r-0 Montana ORDER

FollowingthisCourt's stay ofappeal and remand tothe DistrictCourt for additional rulings, Appellant Vaughn David James filed his opening brief in this matter on October 25, 2021. The State's Briefin Response presently is due May 25, 2022. The State now moves to strike Appellant's Appendices C, D, E, and G. Each is a document from a separate case, State v. Noel, Montana Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County Cause No. DC-16-51. Ms. Noel is the victim ofthe offense with which James was charged. The appendices relate to James's argument that the District Court erred in excluding evidence about Noel's charges in Sanders County, which James argued was relevant to prove Noel's motive to fabricate a sexual assault claim against him to excuse her bond violations and to garner a lenient sentence in her own criminal case. The State objects tothis Court's consideration ofthose documentsbecause they were not in the District Court record in James's case and are not part ofthe record on appeal. The motion requests that the Court also strike references in the OpeningBriefto these appendices and to related information from the proceedings against Noel, none ofwhich was before the District Court in this rnatter when it rnade the rulings challenged on appeal. The State represents that counsel for the Appellant was contacted about the motion to strike and objects. Appellant, however, has filed no response. 05/10/2022

Case Number: DA 18-0597Upon consideration, the Court concludes that the motion is well taken.

M. R.App. P. 8(1) defines the record on appeal as "the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript ofproceedings, ifany, and a certified copy ofthe docket entries prepared by the clerk ofthe district court," in addition to a copy ofany challenged jury instruction. "Parties on appeal are bound by the record." Brunette v. State, 2016 MT 128, ¶ 16, 383 Mont. 458, 372 P.3d 476 (quoting State v. MacKinnon, 1998 MT 78, ¶ 15, 288 Mont. 329, 957 P.2d 23). This Court's review will be based on evidence that was before the District Court when it made its rulings. ITISTHEREFORE ORDEREDthatthe State'smotion isGRANTED. Appendices C, D, E, and G to Appellant's Opening Brief are hereby stricken, and the Court will disregard any factual statementsor arguments intheAppellant'sbriefthat reference orrely on them. The Clerk is directed to notify all counsel ofrecord ofthe entry ofthis Order.

`)ta.. DATED this 

## 16 day ofMay, 2022.

ChiefJustice

Justices
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of
chapter 63 of title 18 of the United States Code, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of SRI/Surgical Express, Inc. (SRI), that, to his knowledge, the Quarterly Report of SRI on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008
(the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of SRI.



|                  |  |     |  |                        
|----------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 5, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gerald Woodard     
|                  |  |     |  | Gerald Woodard         
|                  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43958]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20017]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2457-000]


Rock Creek Wind Project, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Rock Creek Wind Project, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is October 4, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a0c0f180905242623242f193f3a3a25383e0a2c2f3829642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="34727166777b5a585d5a51674144445b464074525146571a535b42">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: September 14, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20017 Filed 9-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2724 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2724

  To amend title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to protect the 
           Medicaid program from budget cuts under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2011

Ms. Wilson of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                       to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 to protect the 
           Medicaid program from budget cuts under such 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 ``Medicaid Protection Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. NO MEDICAID CUTS.

    (a) In General.--Title IV of the Budget Control Act of 2011 is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 405. NO MEDICAID CUTS.

    ``(a) In General.--The joint committee shall not include in its 
proposed legislative language submitted pursuant to section 
401(b)(3)(B)(iv) any provision that reduces eligibility, payments, or 
benefits, increases premiums or other cost-sharing, or otherwise 
reduces outlays under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the 
Social Security Act.
    ``(b) No Application of Expedited Procedures.--If the joint 
committee bill includes a provision that violates subsection (a), the 
expedited procedures in section 402 shall not apply to such bill.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of 
such Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 404 
the following:

``Sec. 405. No Medicaid cuts.''.
                                 <all>
```