alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rev. 1.8.14 

# Fourth Court of Appeals

NOTIFICATION OF LATE RECORD Court of Appeals No., if known: 14-15-00466-CV Trial Court Style: Felix Luera and Bianca Luera v Basic Energy, Et Al Trial Court No.: 13-06-52391-CV I am the official responsible for preparing the clerk’s record/ reporter’s record [circ le one] in the abovereferenced appeal. The approximate date of trial was: Not known The record was originally due: Not known I anticipate the length of the record to be: Not known I am unable to file the record by the date such record is due b ecause [check one]: the appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee, a nd the appellant has failed to pay the fee or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing such reco rd. my other duties or activities pr ecl ude working on the record an d include the following [attach additional pages if needed]:

Other. Explain [attach additio nal pages if needed]: I now under stand what is being appealed is a motion for summary judgment. This court ta kes those motions by submission. I have had no contact with plaintiffs’ counsel to ascertain i f, in fact, that is the only part of this case that is being appealed. If true, there is NO RECORD of the motion for summary judgment. I anticipate the record will be completed by: Not known I, as the undersigned court official, certify that a copy of th is Notification of Late Record has been served by first class mail of fax to the parties to the judgment or order being appea led. Date: August 06, 2015 Signature: Printed Name: Sonia G Trevino Title: Official Court Reporter X

X
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 Lottery & Wagering Solutions Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Miles R. Greenberg, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(a)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                                        /s/ Miles R. Greenberg
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
                                                        May 12, 2004
#### Gregory J. HINDS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent.

No. 2014-3077.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Aug. 5, 2014.

*889Gregory J. Hinds, Virginia Beach, VA, pro se.

Michelle Musgrave, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before REYNA, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

In light of the Department of Homeland Security’s response to this court’s show cause order, we consider whether Gregory J. Hinds’s petition should be dismissed as untimely.

On December 17, 2013, the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board) issued a final order denying Hinds’s petition for review. That same day, the Board served Mr. Hinds and his counsel with a copy of its decision via electronic mail. The court received Hinds’s petition for review on March 4, 2014, 77 days after the final order.

Our review of a Board decision or order is governed by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1). That statute provides, in relevant part, that “any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days after the Board issues notice of the final order or decision of the Board.” In order to be timely, a petition for review must be received by the court within the filing deadline. *Pinat v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.,*931 F.2d 1544, 1546 (Fed. Cir.1991) (petition is filed when received by this court); Fed. R.App. P. 25(a)(2)(A) (“filing is not timely unless the clerk receives the papers within the time fixed for filing”). We have explained that this filing period is “statutory, mandatory, [and] jurisdictional.” *Monzo v. Dep’t of Transp.,*735 F.2d 1335, 1336 (Fed.Cir.1984).

Because Hinds’s appeal was filed outside of. the statutory deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must dismiss the appeal.

Accordingly,

It is Ordered That:

(1) The appeal is dismissed as untimely.

(2) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
2009-1032.

#### Foster v. State.

Hamilton App. No. C-080651. Discretionary appeal accepted on Proposition of Law Nos. I, II, III, IV, V, and VI; cause held for the decision in 2008-2502, *State v. Bodyke,*Huron App. Nos. H-07-040, H-07-041, and H-07-042, 2008-Ohio-6387; and briefing schedule stayed.

Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and O’Donnell, JJ., would also accept the appeal on Proposition of Law No. VII.

Moyer, C.J., and O’Connor, J., would accept the appeal on Proposition of Law Nos. I and II only.

Cupp, J., would not accept Proposition of Law No. III.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the balance sheet as of March 31, 1999 and statement of income for the three
months ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001025834
<NAME>                        Swisher International Group Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                             247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   30,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,734
<INVENTORY>                                     80,394
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               118,469
<PP&E>                                          85,366
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 259,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,463
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           341
<OTHER-SE>                                     121,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   259,745
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,185
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    15
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,435
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,698
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,562
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21
        



</TABLE>
#### Fred Jay JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert BOWMAN, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-17366.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*980Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 24, 2011.

Fred Jay Jackson, Crescent City, CA, pro se.

Kay K. Yu, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Fred Jay Jackson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir.2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Jackson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendants were deliberately indifferent in ■ treating his broken finger. *See id.*at 1057. A difference in opinion about the preferred course of medical treatment does not constitute an Eighth Amendment violation. *Id.*at 1059-60. Moreover, a “showing of medical malpractice or negligence is insufficient to establish a constitutional deprivation under the Eighth Amendment.” *Id.*at 1060.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further discovery because Jackson did not show how allowing him additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment. *See Margolis v. Ryan,*140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1998).

Jackson’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Jackson’s request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1


                  AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


November 15, 1999


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

Re: Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc.
    Registrations on Form S-3 and Form S-8.

We are aware that our report dated November 12, 1999 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. and
subsidiaries for the period ended September 30, 1999 and included in the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter then ended is
incorporated by reference in the Company's registration statements on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-47995 and 333-80603) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-76269,
333-21619, 333-27891, 333-33533, and 333-55685). Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, this report should not be considered a part of
the registration statement prepared or certified by us within the meaning of
Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
    -------------------------------
    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0068

ASHLEY LeANNE TINTINGER,

Petitioner and Appellee, 

v. 

SAMUEL VERNON TINTINGER,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 19, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellee’s Response brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 27 2024

06/27/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0068
exhibit102-401kamendment






                                    AMENDMENT NO. 2    WEST BANCORPORATION, INC. EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN  The Plan named above gives the Employer the right to amend it at any time. According to that right, the Plan is amended effective January 1, 2016, as follows:  By adding the following as the 10th  paragraph under subparagraph (a) of the EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS SECTION of Article III (as previously amended by Amendment No. 1):          The automatic Elective Deferral Contribution shall apply to all Active Participants on each         January 1, who have not elected to make Elective Deferral Contributions of at least 6%.   This amendment is made an integral part of the aforesaid Plan and is controlling over the terms of said Plan with respect to the particular items addressed expressly herein. All other provisions of the Plan remain unchanged and controlling.  Unless otherwise stated on any page of this amendment, eligibility for benefits and the amount of any benefits payable to or on behalf of an individual who is an Inactive Participant on the effective date(s) stated above, shall be determined according to the provisions of the aforesaid Plan as in effect on the day before he became an Inactive Participant.  Signing this amendment, the Employer, as plan sponsor, has made the decision to adopt this plan amendment. The Employer is acting in reliance on its own discretion and on the legal and tax advice of its own advisors, and not that of any member of the Principal Financial Group or any representative of a member company of the Principal Financial Group.  Signed this ______________ day of _______________________________________, _______.                                               WEST BANCORPORATION, INC.                                               By ________________________________                                               ___________________________________                                                                Title                                                1
EXHIBIT  32.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of ENHANCE SKIN PRODUCTS INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year  ended April  30, 2009, as filed with the  Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Dr. Samuel S. Asculai, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant  to
18 U.S.C.  1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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








By:
/s/ Dr. Samuel S. AsculaiDate: September 14, 2009

Dr. Samuel S. AsculaiChief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,332,175
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      38,014,912
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 22,991,187
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                    184,954,930
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,531,843
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             254,862,701
<DEPOSITS>                                 231,781,238
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,222,724
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,703,937
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,154,802
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             254,862,701
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              7,417,160
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,021,558
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             8,438,718
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,121,898
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              88,995
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        4,210,893
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  206,578
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               8,140
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,332,375
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,425,631
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,425,631
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   866,731
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.09
<LOANS-NON>                                    446,465
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 20,262
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,351,309
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   27,854
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,810
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,531,843
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,531,843
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### Melvin Mazariegos ZACARIAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70978.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.*

Filed Jan. 20, 2011.

Tamiko O. Moore, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

*88Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Russell J.E. Verby, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Melvin Mazariegos Zacarías, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence factual findings. *Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey,*542 F.3d 738, 742 (9th Cir.2008). We deny the petition for review.

Zacarías contends he suffered harm from gang members during two assaults on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that the gang intended to recruit him, and thus Zacarías failed to establish the required nexus to a protected ground. *See id.*at 747 (“resistance to a gang’s recruitment efforts aloné [does not] constitute[ ] political opinion”). Accordingly, Zacarías’ asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. *See Barrios v. Holder,*581 F.3d 849, 856 (9th Cir.2009).

Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that Zacarías did not establish a likelihood of torture upon return to Guatemala. *See Santos-Lemus,*542 F.3d at 748. Accordingly, his CAT claim also fails.

Zacarías’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the evidence fails because he has not overcome the presumption that the BIA reviewed the record. *See Fernandez v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 1 0 4 8 4 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. W I L L I A M R A Y N O B L E S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 6 : 0 9

- C R

- 4 5

- 1

B e f o r e W I E N E R , P R A D O , a n d O W E N , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t W i l l i a m R a y N o b l e s h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. N o b l e s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d N o b l e s ’ s r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s

n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o

w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n ,
a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Februa ry 14 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-10484 Document: 00511381564 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/14/2011
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeals of --

Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering 

Services, LLC 

Under Contract No. NOO 178-04-D-4016 

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA Nos. 61177, 61253 

Karen L. Manos, Esq. 

Lindsay M. Paulin, Esq. 

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Lawrence S. Rabyne, Esq. 

Senior Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Arlington Heights, IL 

Kara M. Klaas, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Chantilly, VA 

OPINION BY ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE THRASHER 

The parties have resolved their dispute and request that the Board enter 

judgment in favor of appellant. 

It is the Board's decision, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 7105(e), 7108(b), and the 

parties' stipulation and agreement, that the appeal is sustained. In the nature of a 

consent judgment, the Board makes a monetary award to appellant in the amount of 

$12,801,000. Interest shall be paid on this amount pursuant to 41 U.S.C. § 7109 from 

22 May 201 7 until date of payment. 

Dated: 5 April 2018 

(Signatures continued) 

tlministrative Judg~ 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 
I concur 

RICHARD SHACKLEFORD 

Administrative Judge 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I concur 

OWEN C. WILSON 

Administrative Judg~ 

Vice Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Opinion and Decision of the 

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 61177, 61253, Appeals of 

Booz Allen Hamilton Engineering Services, LLC, rendered in conformance with the 

Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

2 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals