alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BALES-FULKERSON CO. v. FREEMEN.

No. 6948.

Opinion Filed March 9, 1915.

(146 Pac. 1082.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Petition in Error — Time for Presenting — Dissolution of Attachment. The time in which petition in error on appeal to Supreme Court from an order dissolving an attachment may be filed is limited to 30 days from the date of the order of dissolution under section 5266, Rev. Laws 1910, and such time cannot be extended by order of the court beyond such 30 days.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*799*Error from District Court, Caddo County; J. T. Johnson, Judge.*

Action by tbe Bales-Fulkerson Company, a copartnership, composed of E. Bales and another, against E. E. Freemen. From an order dissolving attachment, plaintiff brings error.

Dismissed.

*Bond, Melton & Melton,*for plaintiff in error.

*A. J. Morns,*for defendant in error.

BROWN, J.

Judgment of the district court Was entered August 12, 1914, dissolving attachment on a stock of hardware and implements, in which order 30 days5 time was allowed in which to file petition in error in this court. On August 15, 1914, tire judge attempted to extend said time for a further period of 60 days, which would expire on the 10th day of November, 1914. The petition in error with case-made attached was filed herein on the 5th day of November, 1914, 5 days before the expiration of the time extended. Defendant in error filed motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the court had no authority to extend said time in which to file petition in error, and no answer ■thereto has been filed.

Section 5266, Rev. Laws 1910, which was in force at the time of the filing of this case below, being section 6466, Stat. 1893, provides as follows:

> “When an order discharging or modifying an attachment or a temporary injunction shall be made in any case, and the party who obtained such attachment or injunction shall except to such order, for the purpose of having the same reviewed in the Supreme Court upon petition in error, the court or judge, granting said order shall, upon application of the proper party, fix the time, not exceeding thirty days from the discharge or modification of said attachment or injunction, within which such petition in error shall be filed; and during such time the execution of *800said order shall be suspended, and until a decision of the case (upon -the petition in error, if same shall be filed. * * * If such petition in error shall not be filed within the time limited, the order of .discharge shall become operative and be carried into effect; and ¡the certificate of the clerk of the Supreme Court that such petition in error is not filed, shall be evidence thereof.”

Under this statute, the trial court could only grant 30 days’ (time in which to file petition in error from the date of the judgment, >and what it could not do in one order cannot be done in separate orders. The time is limited by statute “not to exceed thirty days,” and this limitation cannot be extended by order of the1 court.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

All the Justices concur.
Exhibit
32.2
  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 of American Tax Credit Properties L.P. (the
“Registrant”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Neal Ludeke, Chief Financial Officer of Richman Tax Credit Properties Inc.,
general partner of Richman Tax Credit Properties L.P., general partner of the
Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S)
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)
    The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  (2)
    The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.
  
  /s/
Neal Ludeke
 Neal
Ludeke
 Chief
Financial Officer of Richman Tax
 Credit
Properties Inc., general partner of
 Richman
Tax Credit Properties L.P., general
 partner
of the Registrant
 February
14, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

792 

KA 14-00348 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC L. STRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (NICHOLAS P. DIFONZO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (WILLIAM G. ZICKL OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C.

Noonan, J.), rendered January 28, 2014. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the

third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon his plea of guilty of attempted grand larceny in the third degree

(Penal Law §§ 110.00, 155.35 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s

contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and

intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v

Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver forecloses any

challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see id. at

255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v

Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737).

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2532 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2532

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse in 
 Lubbock, Texas, as the ``George H. Mahon Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.






103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2532

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT


 
   To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse in 
 Lubbock, Texas, as the ``George H. Mahon Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1205 
Texas Avenue in Lubbock, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 
``George H. Mahon Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``George H. Mahon Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 13, 1993.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
March 16, 2016 STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT A15-1274 In re Petition for Disciplinary Action against James Richard Mayer, a Minnesota Attorney, Registration No. 0312241. ORDER 

# fl**Om~ OF**  APPB.lAlECcuns

The Director ofthe Office ofLawyers Professional Responsibility filed a petition for disciplinary action alleging that respondent James Richard Mayer committed professional misconduct warranting public discipline--namely, misappropriating funds from a non-profit organization, including by forging signatures on checks, while serving
as an officer ofthat non-profit. See Minn. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) and 8.4(c). Respondent waives his rights under Rule 14, Rules on Lawyers Professional Responsibility (RLPR), withdraws his previously filed answer, and unconditionally admits the allegations in the petition. The parties recommend that, in light ofmitigating factors, the appropriate discipline is an indefinite suspension with no right to petition for reinstatement for 18 months. The court has independently reviewed the file and approves the recommended disposition. Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,



### 1IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. RespondentJames RichardMayer is indefinitely suspended from the practice oflaw, effective as ofthe date ofthis order, with no right to petition for reinstatement for 18 months. 2. Respondentmaypetition for reinstatement pursuantto Rule 

### 18(a)-(d), RLPR. Reinstatement is conditioned on successful completion ofthe professional responsibility portion of the state bar examination and satisfaction of continuing legal education requirements pursuant to Rule 18(e), RLPR. 3. Respondent shall comply with Rule 26, RLPR (requiring notice of suspensionto clients, opposing counsel, andtribunals), and shall pay $900 in costs pursuant to Rule 24, RLPR. Dated: March 16, 2016 BY THE COURT:

# ~~ 

# t>f David 

### R. Stras Associate Justice LILLEHAUG, J., took no part in the consideration or decision ofthis case.

2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 21, 2022

No. 04-22-00772-CR

EX PARTE Jorge BECERRA ORTIZ

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 12255CR

Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 The clerk’s record in this appeal has been filed. The record reflects that on May 11, 

2022, appellant filed in the trial court an application for pretrial writ of habeas corpus. On 

September 9, 2022, appellant filed a notice of appeal, contending the trial court denied him relief 

on September 7, 2022. The clerk’s record does not contain a final order signed by the trial court. 

On September 14, 2022, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal 

stating, in part, that “I do not find where I have signed, or has been submitted to me for 

signature, an Order Denying Application for Pretrial Writ of Habeas Corpus and for Other 

Ancillary Matters,” although [a] notice of appeal has ben [sic] filed.” This court contacted 

appellant’s attorney who stated there is no signed order in the case. Therefore, it appeared this 

appeal was interlocutory, and we lacked jurisdiction.

 On November 30, 2022, we ordered appellant to show cause in writing, no later than

December 12, 2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All other 

appellate deadlines were held in abeyance pending further order of this court. Appellant did not 

respond; however, on December 14, 2022, a supplemental clerk’s record was filed containing a 

signed written final order.

We reinstate the appellate deadlines, and appellant is ORDERED to file his brief no later 

than January 10, 2023.

_________________________________

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

court on this 21st day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Timothy S. Davidson, certify that:





1.     I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of Natural Health Trends Corp.; and





2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.





Date: June 18, 2019/s/ Timothy S. DavidsonTimothy S. DavidsonSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40201 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

ERIC CRUZ ,
Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:13

- CR

- 358

- 1

Before KING, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Eric Cruz has moved for leave to
withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Cruz
h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 16, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40201 Document: 00512871312 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/16/2014No. 14

- 40201

A ccordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 14-40201 Document: 00512871312 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/16/2014
Exhibit 8

List of Subsidiaries of Crystallex International Corporation



|                                     |  |                              
|------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                      |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|                                     | 
|Crystallex Procurement Services Inc. |  | USA                          
|                                     | 
|Arbco BVI                            |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                     | 
|Dindirri XXI                         |  | Spain                        
|                                     | 
|Corporacion Suayca, C.A.             |  | Venezuela                    
|                                     | 
|Crystallex de Uruguay S.A.           |  | British Virgin Islands       
|                                     | 
|Crystallex de Venezuela C.A.         |  | Venezuela                    
|                                     | 
|0702259 B.C. Ltd.                    |  | British Columbia, Canada     
|                                     | 
|ECM (Venco) Ltd.                     |  | Bermuda                      
|                                     | 
|Osmin Holdings Ltd.                  |  | Bermuda                      
|                                     | 
|Auriferos El Callao C.A.             |  | Venezuela                    
|                                     | 
|Corporacion Minera Las Mercedes      |  |                              
|                                     | 
|El Carapo C.A.                       |  | Venezuela                    
|                                     | 
|Bolivar Goldfields A.V.V.            |  | Aruba                        
|                                     | 
|Orinoquia Mining A.V.V.              |  | Aruba                        
|                                     | 
|Mineras Bonanza C.A.                 |  | Venezuela                    
|                                     | 
|Revemin II C.A.                      |  | Venezuela
# Est Profile Work
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 29, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda, Appellant

V.

Aspri Investments, LLC, Appellee

No. 04-15-00340-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2015-CI-01910

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

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

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

We order that appellants Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda

bear the costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on November 5, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-15-00340-CV

Hari Prasad Kalakonda and Latha Kalakonda

v.

Aspri Investments, LLC

(NO. 2015-CI-01910 IN 37TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

REPORTER'S RECORD

SUPPLEMENTAL CLERK'S

RECORD

INDIGENT

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

$15.00

$0.00

$249.00

$25.00

$100.00

$20.00

$50.00

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

HARI KALAKONDA

HARI KALAKONDA

KALAKONDA

KALAKONDA

KALAKONDA

KALAKONDA

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this November 5, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND 
COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                     0000829987                        
<NAME>                   COPLEY PHARMACEUTICAL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                         11,100
<SECURITIES>                                   22,197
<RECEIVABLES>                                  28,582
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (500)
<INVENTORY>                                    26,570
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              101,192
<PP&E>                                         73,537
<DEPRECIATION>                                (27,885)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                149,891
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          38,919
<BONDS>                                         4,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       254
<OTHER-SE>                                     101,124
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   149,891
<SALES>                                        28,208
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               28,208
<CGS>                                          22,467
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,467
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                5,345
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                573
<INCOME-TAX>                                   170
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   403
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .02
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE RANDERS
GROUP INCORPORATED REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JULY 4, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000
       
<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                11,270
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         14,579
<ALLOWANCES>                             949
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      37,247
<PP&E>                                15,955
<DEPRECIATION>                         4,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        94,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 10,290
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  13
<OTHER-SE>                            80,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          94,919
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      20,083
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         15,054
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         257
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        43
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        1,522
<INCOME-TAX>                             734
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      788
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             788
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.01
        

</TABLE>