alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Maria Duria Chavelas, Individually, also 

known as Maria Duria Wilhelm d/b/a 

International Legal Services-Abogados, 

d/b/a Abogados Sin International Legal 

Services and d/b/a Attorney's without 

Borders,

 

 Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas,

 State.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00081-CV

Appeal from the

346th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2014DCV1634)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court are two motions related to the trial court’s order finding that 

Appellant is able to afford to pay the costs of this appeal. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 145(g). Appellant 

filed an untimely motion to challenge the trial court’s May 6, 2019 order finding that she is able 

to afford to pay the costs of this appeal. She also filed an untimely extension motion based on her 

assertion that she did not receive notice of the trial court’s May 6, 2019 order. See TEX.R.CIV.P.

145(g)(2). Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her motion to challenge is granted. 

Therefore, we will review the merits of Appellant’s motion to challenge.

On May 6, 2019, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the court’s reporter’s 

challenge to Appellant’s Statement of Inability, and the trial court determined that Appellant is 
2

able to afford to pay the costs of this appeal. TEX.R.CIV.P. 145(f)(6). Further, the trial court made 

detailed findings of fact as required by Rule 145(f)(6). 

We review a trial court’s order for an abuse of discretion. See Arevalo v. Millan, 983 

S.W.2d 803, 804 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). In deciding whether the declarant 

is unable to afford to pay court costs, the test is whether the declarant proved either that she receives 

public assistance, is being assisted pro bono by counsel, or does not have funds to afford payment 

of costs. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 145(e). An abuse of discretion is shown only if the trial court’s ruling 

is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to be clearly wrong. Arevalo, 983 S.W.2d at 804. As the trier 

of fact, the trial court weighs the evidence and determines the declarant’s credibility. The trial 

court found that Appellant does not receive public assistance, is not being represented by counsel 

pro bono, and failed to establish that she does not have the funds to afford payment of costs. After 

reviewing the entire record of the hearing, we are unable to find that the trial court abused its 

discretion by finding that Appellant failed to prove that she is unable to afford to pay the costs of 

this appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to challenge is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3

rd day of July, 2019.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALPHONSO OLIPHANT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

    v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,et al.,

Defendants                                                                      /

No. C-08-5048 MMC

ORDER VACATING MAY 7, 2010STATUS CONFERENCE

In light of defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment, and a settlement

conference before Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen having been scheduled for May 17,

2010, the May 7, 2010 Status Conference before the undersigned is hereby VACATED.

The June 8, 2010 Pretrial Conference and June 21, 2010 trial date, and all

associated deadlines, remain as scheduled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  April 30, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05048-MMC   Document 70   Filed 04/30/10   Page 1 of 1

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2018-03-12T18:52:21-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uni

ted 

Stat

es D

istr

ict C

ourt

For t

he N

orth

ern 

Dis

trict

 of C

alifo

rnia

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re WELLS FARGO RESIDENTIALMORTGAGE LENDING DISCRIMINATIONLITIGATION___________________________________

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS                                                                      /

M: 08-CV-1930 MMC

ORDER APPOINTING THE HONORABLERONALD M. SABRAW (RET.) ASSPECIAL MASTER FOR DISCOVERY PURPOSES;DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation filed March 4, 2010, the Court hereby appoints

the Honorable Ronald M. Sabraw (Ret.) as Special Master, and he shall have the duties set

forth in the Court’s order of February 18, 2010.

The parties are directed to serve a copy of this order, as well as the Court’s

February 18, 2010 order, on Judge Sabraw.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  March 29, 2010                                                   MAXINE M. CHESNEYUnited States District Judge

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC   Document 241   Filed 03/29/10   Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY OLIVER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Nos. 19 & 20 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of June, 2023, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.
#### § 1006.360 Conflict of interest.

In the procurement of property and services by the DHHL and contractors, the conflict of interest provisions in 2 CFR 200.317 (for DHHL) and 2 CFR 200.318 (for subrecipients).

[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 80 FR 75945, Dec. 7, 2015]
```

[House Report 112-214]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    112-214

======================================================================

 
   WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO 
  CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON 
                                 RULES

                                _______
                                

 September 21, 2011.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

               Mr. Dreier, from the Committee on Rules, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 409]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 409, by a record vote of 8 to 3, report the 
same to the House with the recommendation that the resolution 
be adopted.

                SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION

    The resolution waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII (requiring a 
two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is 
reported from the Rules Committee) against certain resolutions 
reported from the Rules Committee. The resolution applies the 
waiver to any resolution reported through the legislative day 
of September 30, 2011, relating to a measure making continuing 
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012.

                            COMMITTEE VOTES

    The results of each record vote on an amendment or motion 
to report, together with the names of those voting for and 
against, are printed below:

Rules Committee record vote No. 130

    Motion by Mr. Sessions to report the resolution. Adopted: 
8-3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Majority Members                      Vote               Minority Members               Vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Sessions....................................          Yea   Mr. McGovern......................          Nay
Ms. Foxx........................................          Yea   Mr. Hastings of Florida...........          Nay
Mr. Bishop of Utah..............................          Yea   Mr. Polis.........................          Nay
Mr. Woodall.....................................          Yea
Mr. Nugent......................................          Yea
Mr. Scott of South Carolina.....................          Yea
Mr. Webster.....................................          Yea
Mr. Dreier, Chairman............................          Yea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  

```
#### James Talcott, Inc., Respondent, v. Alexander C. Elishewitz et al., Defendants, Sophia E. Hart, Appellant.

Order entered on February 21, 1962 unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lazaro Dachille, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing, denied with leave to renew upon his own affidavit showing that he is now actually indigent. Appellant’s time to perfect the appeal extended to the May Term, commencing April 24, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1240

___________

Donna Lunday, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of North Dakota.

Ken Salazar, Secretary, United *

States Department of Interior, or his * [UNPUBLISHED]

predecessor-in-office; and United *

States Department of Interior, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: July 5, 2012

Filed: July 12, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this action claiming employment-related discrimination and retaliation,

Donna Lunday appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment. 1

Appellees suggest that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, based

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, United StatesDistrictJudge for the District 1

of North Dakota.
upon an argument that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Appellees

alternatively argue that summary judgment was correctly granted.

We note that appellees’ argument regarding the district court’s subject matter

jurisdiction does not implicate our appellate jurisdiction. In any event, we conclude

that jurisdiction was proper in the district court, see Warren v. Dep’t of Army,

867 F.2d 1156, 1159 (8th Cir. 1989), and, upon careful de novo review, see

Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1042 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert.

denied, 132 S. Ct. 513 (2011), we further conclude--for the reasons stated by the

district court--that summary judgment was appropriately granted.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
#### In the Matter of G & R Electrical Contractors, Inc., Appellant, v Joseph J. Christian, as Chairman of the New York City Housing Authority, et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 25, 1977, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Fein, J., at Special Term. Respondents shall recover of the appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Concur—Birns, J. P., Evans, Lane and Sullivan, JJ.
### §5201. Rules and regulations

(a)(1) The President may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary and proper to carry out any of the provisions of this chapter, and he may exercise any power or authority conferred on him by any section of this chapter either directly or through such Federal agency or agencies as he may designate.

(2) Deadline for payment of assistance.—Rules and regulations authorized by paragraph (1) shall provide that payment of any assistance under this chapter to a State shall be completed within 60 days after the date of approval of such assistance.

(b) In furtherance of the purposes of this chapter, the President or his delegate may accept and use bequests, gifts, or donations of service, money, or property, real, personal, or mixed, tangible, or intangible. All sums received under this subsection shall be deposited in a separate fund on the books of the Treasury and shall be available for expenditure upon the certification of the President or his delegate. At the request of the President or his delegate, the Secretary of the Treasury may invest and reinvest excess monies in the fund. Such investments shall be in public debt securities with maturities suitable for the needs of the fund and shall bear interest at rates determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities. The interest on such investments shall be credited to, and form a part of, the fund.

(Pub. L. 93–288, title VII, §701, formerly title VI, §601, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 163; Pub. L. 96–446, Oct. 13, 1980, 94 Stat. 1893; Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §108(a), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4707; renumbered title VII, §701, Pub. L. 103–337, div. C, title XXXIV, §3411(a)(1), (2), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3100.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 93–288, May 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 143. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5121 of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

1988—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–707 designated existing provision as par. (1) and added par. (2).

1980—Pub. L. 96–446 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsec. (b).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Deadline for Issuance of Regulations

Pub. L. 100–707, title I, §113, Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4711, provided that: "Regulations necessary to carry out this title and the amendments made by this title [see Short Title of 1988 Amendment note set out under section 5121 of this title] shall be issued no later than the 180th day following the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 23, 1988]."

[Functions of President under section 113 of Pub. L. 100–707 delegated to Director of Federal Emergency Management Agency by section 5 of Ex. Ord. No. 12673, Mar. 23, 1989, 54 F.R. 12571, set out as a note under section 5195 of this title.]
'eir--6---f 

DA 23-0700

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2024 MT 106N

SKYLER WILLARD, LACIE WILLARD,

individually and on behalf of R.C.R.W.,

R.A.W., and A.L.W., minor children,

 Plaintiffs and Appellees,

 v. 

JOSEPH SCHMAUS, TRACI SCHMAUS,

and DOES 1-9,

 Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,

In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. ADV-2023-558

Honorable Mike Menahan, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

Joseph Schmaus, Traci Schmaus, Self-Represented, Clancy, Montana

For Appellees:

Jeffrey M. Doud, Doud Law Firm, P.C., Helena, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: April 17, 2024

 Decided: May 14, 2024

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

05/14/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0700
2

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating 

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not 

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this 

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana 

Reports. 

¶2 Appellants appeal the denial of their motion to change venue pursuant to 

§ 25-2-201(1), MCA, which requires change of venue when the county designated in the 

complaint is not a proper county. Their only argument on appeal is that they were not 

given an opportunity to file a reply brief before the District Court ruled on the motion. 

After reviewing the record, we conclude any alleged error was harmless. “[N]o civil case 

shall be reversed by reason of error which would have no significant impact upon the result; 

if there is no showing of substantial injustice, the error is harmless.” In re A.N., 

2000 MT 35, ¶ 39, 298 Mont. 237, 995 P.2d 427 (internal quotation omitted). For tort 

actions, § 25-2-122, MCA, provides that a proper venue is either the county where the 

defendant resides or the county where the tort was committed. Allen v. Atl. Richfield Co., 

2005 MT 281, ¶ 9, 329 Mont. 230, 124 P.3d 132. Here, Appellees allege Appellants 

committed torts in Lewis and Clark County, and they filed their lawsuit in Lewis and Clark 

County as § 25-2-122, MCA, contemplates. The only prejudice Appellants claim in not 

being able to file a reply brief is the inability to file “appropriate responsive documents” 

without describing what those might have been and how it would affect that Appellees 
3

brought their action in an appropriate county. Appellants have thus failed to show that any 

substantial injustice has occurred. 

¶3 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our 

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the 

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of 

applicable standards of review. 

¶4 Affirmed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

We Concur:

/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA

/S/ BETH BAKER

/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

/S/ JIM RICE
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MELINDA HAAG (CSBN. 132612)

United States Attorney

THOMAS MOORE (ASBN 4305-O78T)

Assistant United States Attorney

 10 floor Federal Building th

 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

 San Francisco, California 94102

 Telephone: (415) 436-7017

Attorneys for the United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) No. C-09-0972-MHP

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

FRANK LAEREMAN, ) SENTENCING AND 

) [proposed] ORDER THEREON

Defendant. )

 )

For the reason that counsel for the United States will be unavailable the remainder of the

week and was just served with the Presentence Investigative Report and for that reason will be r

unable to timely file a Sentencing Memorandum for the August 30, 2010 sentencing, the United

States of America and the defendant Frank Laereman, through their counsel, stipulate and agree

that the sentencing set for August 30, 2010, be continued to September 27, 2010. 

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

 /s/ /s/ 

GEOFFREY HANSEN THOMAS MOORE

Attorney for Frank Laereman Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for the United States

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8/23/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTH

ALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-00972-MHP Document 31 Filed 08/24/10 Page 1 of 1
All Iftron 5.8GHz transmitters have a four position DIP switch to select the channel and control the battery 

saver cell count with the exception of the Stinger 25 which does not have a battery saver.

Channel SW3 SW2 SW1

1 ON ON ON

2 ON ON OFF

3 ON OFF ON

4 ON OFF OFF

5 OFF ON ON

6 OFF ON OFF

7 OFF OFF ON

BATTERY SAVER (all but Stinger 25mW)

This will shut down the transmitter and a camera if powered from the transmitter when the battery gets low. To 

defeat this feature, use a 3 cell battery and set the switch to 2 cells.

SW4 Battery saver mode

OFF Off at 5.4V, back on at 5.7V (2 cell)

ON Off at 8.4V, back on at 8.7V (3 cell)

TRANSMITTER PLUG ‘N PLAY CONNECTIONS
TRANSMITTER CURRENT REQUIREMENTS

Note: Never operate these transmitters without an antenna!

Cells / Voltage Mondo (500mW) Stinger (250mW) Stinger (100mW) Stinger (25mW)

2 / 7.4V 510mA 470mA 230mA 90mA

3 / 11.1V 340mA 280mA 160mA 60mA

4 / 14.8V 250mA 110mA 50mA

RECEIVER CURRENT REQUIREMENTS

Cells / Voltage YellowJacket Pro 5.8 Nano 5.8

2 / 7.4V 400mA 280mA

3 / 11.1V 260mA 280mA
Exhibit 13.1



Certification by the Principal Executive Officer

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



I, Huisen Wang, Chief Executive Officer of Huadi
International Group Co., Ltd. (the “Company”), hereby 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:



| | a. | the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2022 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 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 for the periods presented therein.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date February 15, 2023 |                
|---------------------- | ---------------
|                       |                
|By:                    | /s/ Huisen Wang
|                       | Name:          
|                       | Title: