alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 26, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00524-CV

BRIAN CAYCE BERTRAND, Appellant

V.

JOHN DAVID BERTRAND AND ANDREA GAIL ROBINSON BETRAND, Appellees

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-15646

ORDER

We ORDER the District Clerk to file before August 29, 2014 a supplemental clerk’s 

record containing the March 28, 2013 letter to the Honorable Gena Slaughter from Coyt Randal 

Johnston, Jr.

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,315
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,117<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                       401
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          71,979
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,280
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 116,090
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             8
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,955
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   116,090
<SALES>                                         31,911
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,140
<CGS>                                           25,803
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,209<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,386
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,339
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,981
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,981
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.39
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are comprised of Due from Tax Credit Partnerships, Construction
Contracts Receivable, Notes Receivable and Due from Related Parties.
<F2>Other Expenses are comprised of general and administrative, depreciation and
amortization expenses and joint venture loss.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 18

- 00291

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 322nd District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 322

- 615977

- 17
Before Kerr, Pittman, and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### I N THE 

### I NTEREST OF 

### K.T., A 

### C HILD2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On December 10, 2018, we notified a ppellant that the trial

- court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant has not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned t hat we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and prov ided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b),
44.3

. Because appellant has not made payment arra ngements for the clerk’s record,
we now dismiss the a ppeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Delivered: January 1 7 , 201 9
#### Joseph Montesano, Individually and as President of Rochester Firefighters, Inc., Local 1071, IAFF, AFL-CIO, as Trustee of Rochester Firefighters Association Mutual Aid Fund and on Behalf of All Other Individuals Providing Fire Protection to City of Rochester Similarly Situated, et al., Appellants, v Floyd A. Madison, as Chief of Fire Department of City of Rochester and as Administrator of Firefighters Insurance Fund of City of Rochester, et al., Defendants, and City of Rochester, Respondent.

Submitted January 7, 2008;

decided March 13, 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.
Exhibit
32.1


CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the accompanying
Quarterly Report of Retrospettiva, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), I, Borivoje Vukadinovic, the
Company’s Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:





(1)           The
Report 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 the Company.








Date:   May
14, 2010








/s/ Borivoje
Vukadinovic


Borivoje
Vukadinovic,


Principal
Executive Officer








/s/ Borivoje
Vukadinovic


Borivoje
Vukadinovic,


Principal
Financial Officer
Exhibit 10.2



December 31, 2003



Mr. George W. Vieth, Jr.

3365 Greenhill Lane

Louisville, KY 40207



| | Re: | Second Amendment
| | --- | ----------------



Dear George:



This letter
amends the Employment Agreement dated as of December 6, 2002, as amended November 18, 2003 (the Agreement) between you and AMF Bowling Worldwide, Inc. The defined terms in the Agreement have the same meaning herein. You and the Company
hereby agree as follows:



1. Section 2 of the Agreement is
amended by deleting the date December 31, 2003 in the second line of the Section and replacing it with January 31, 2004.



2. Section 3.(c)i of the Agreement is amended by deleting the words prior to December 31, 2003 in the first line thereof and substituting in
their place prior to January 31, 2004.



3. The
current Section 3.(f) is renumbered as Section 3.(h).



4. A new
Section 3.(f) Extension Bonus is added to read as follows:



In consideration of the Executive agreeing to extend the term of the Agreement until January 31, 2004, the Company will pay to the Executive $100,000 on December 31, 2003.



Please acknowledge your agreement by signing a copy of this letter and returning it to me.



Sincerely,/s/ Christopher F. CaesarChristopher F. Caesar Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer




|                        
|------------------------
|AGREED:                 
|                        
|/s/ George W. Vieth, Jr.
|                        
|George W. Vieth, Jr.    
|Date: December 31, 2003
exv10w159wp






Exhibit 10.159P




Attachment B to Letter Agreement 6-1162-AKP-110R3 (Model 777)

MADP Rights Aircraft Delivery Months and Exercise Dates




[CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	PA No. 1980
	 	SA No. 20
	 	Page 1 of 1






 








 





Attachment C to Letter Agreement 6-1162-AKP-110R3 (Model 777)

QADP Rights Aircraft Delivery Quarters and Exercise Dates




[CONFIDENTIAL
PORTION OMITTED AND FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION PURSUANT TO A REQUEST
FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT]



					
	 	 	 	 	 
	PA No. 1980
	 	SA No. 20
	 	Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARION MAYS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. 

(1:03-cr-00726-MBS-1; 1:07-cv-70123-MBS)

Submitted: October 6, 2011 Decided: October 20, 2011

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marion Mays, Appellant Pro Se. Jimmie Ewing, Mark C. Moore, 

Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marion Mays seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Mays has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,742,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,822,704
<PP&E>                                         193,647
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,087,405
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          125,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,263
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,957,383
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,087,405
<SALES>                                         30,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               221,254
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (123,905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (123,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (123,905)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1


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

         I, Richard K. Crump, as President and Chief Executive Officer of
Sterling Chemicals, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

         (1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report of the Company for the period
ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), 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.

Dated: May 10, 2005

                                    /s/ RICHARD K. CRUMP
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    Richard K. Crump,
                                    President and Chief Executive Officer
Judgment Vacated and Case Remanded and Opinion Filed July 24, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00731-CV 

DALLAS BERKSHIRE PARTNERS, LTD, Appellant 

V. 

GLASS CELLAR, LLC AND RANDALL M. DEWITT, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04908 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Smith, Miskel, and Breedlove 

Opinion by Justice Breedlove 

Before the Court is appellant’s agreed motion to dismiss the appeal because 

the parties have settled their dispute. Appellant asks that we dismiss the appeal, 

vacate the trial court’s judgment, and remand this case to the trial court with 

instructions for the trial court to dismiss all claims with prejudice. We grant the 

motion as follows. 

 
 –2– 

We set aside the trial court’s April 4, 2024 judgment without regard to the 

merits and remand this case to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance 

with the parties’ agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). 

 

240731F.P05 

 

/Maricela Breedlove/

MARICELA BREEDLOVE 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DALLAS BERKSHIRE 

PARTNERS, LTD, Appellant 

No. 05-24-00731-CV V. 

GLASS CELLAR, LLC AND 

RANDALL M. DEWITT, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 68th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-04908. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Breedlove. Justices Smith and Miskel 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we SET ASIDE the trial 

court’s April 4, 2024 judgment without regard to the merits and REMAND this case 

to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. 

 Subject to any agreement between the parties, we ORDER that appellees 

GLASS CELLAR, LLC AND RANDALL M. DEWITT recover their costs of this 

appeal from appellant DALLAS BERKSHIRE PARTNERS, LTD. 

Judgment entered July 24, 2024
Dismissed and Opinion Filed September 27, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00954-CV

ABDUL MATEEN MODI, Appellant

V.

AFSHEEN IMRAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-03597-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Goldstein

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated September 1, 

2021, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We directed 

appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned 

appellant that failure to file his brief by that time would result in the dismissal of this 

appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a brief, filed an 

extension motion, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of 

this appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c).
–2–

200954f.p05

/Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ABDUL MATEEN MODI, 

Appellant

No. 05-20-00954-CV V.

AFSHEEN IMRAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 3, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 003-03597-

2019.

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Molberg. Justices Nowell and 

Goldstein participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

Judgment entered this 27th day of September, 2021.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 273 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 273

     To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to revise the 
requirements for areas to be considered as rural areas for purposes of 
                               such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2011

 Mr. Fortenberry introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 to revise the 
requirements for areas to be considered as rural areas for purposes of 
                               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 ``Rural Housing Preservation Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF RURAL AREA.

    The second sentence of section 520 of the Housing Act of 1949 (42 
U.S.C. 1490) is amended by striking: ``1990 or 2000 decennial census 
shall continue to be so classified until the receipt of data from the 
decennial census in the year 2010'' and inserting ``1990, 2000, or 2010 
decennial census shall continue to be so classified until the receipt 
of data from the decennial census in the year 2020''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)


     In connection with the accompanying  Quarterly Report of Consortium Service
Management Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June
30, 2005 (the  "Report"),  I, K. Bruce  Jones,  Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); and

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

Dated:  August 15, 2005
                                                     /s/ K. Bruce Jones
                                                     ------------------
                                                     K. Bruce Jones
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


     The above  certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44691-44692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20342]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #15302 and #15303; FLORIDA Disaster Number FL-
00130]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for the 
State of Florida

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 5.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4337-DR), dated 09/10/
2017.
    Incident: Hurricane Irma.
    Incident Period: 09/04/2017 and continuing.

DATES: Issued on 09/16/2017.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/09/2017.
    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: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Florida, dated 09/10/2017, is hereby 
amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the 
disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans): Dixie, 
Lafayette
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Florida: Taylor

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.


[[Page 44692]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

James E. Rivera,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2017-20342 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P