alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 20

- 00111

- CR

IN RE KIM WAYNE BURDEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens2 

### ME MORANDUM OPIN ION

Kim Wayne Burden petitioned for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the trial judge of the 8 th Judicial District Court of Delta County, Texas , to rule on her motio n for a copy
of the trial court ’s record. Because Burden failed to provide us with a record to support her entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny her petition for writ of mandamus. To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1 ) that s he has no adequate remedy at law and (2) that the action s he seeks to compel is minis te rial, not one involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at
Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) ( orig. proceeding). The relator has “the burden of providing this Court wi th a sufficient record to establish [her ] right to mandamus
relief. ” Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) ( orig. proceeding) ; see In re Pilgrim ’ s Pride Cor

p. , 187 S.W.3d 197, 198

– 99 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see al so T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 52.3. Before mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or
refused to act. In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Am arillo 2003, orig.
p rocee ding).
Burd en’s petition includes a file

- stamped copy of her motion and a copy of an unsworn
and uncertified letter to the d istrict c lerk dated July 4, 2020, asking about the motion. That said , the petition does not come with any proof that s he bro ug ht th is matter to the attention of the trial

court , as is required

. See In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.

— Tex arkana 2008, orig. proceeding). “ Showing that a motion was filed with the court clerk does not constitute3

proof that the mot ion wa s broug ht to the trial court ’ s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling. ” Id. ; see also T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k). W e , therefore , cannot determine
whether this matter was presented to the trial court. See Blakeney , 254 S .W.3d at 662

. It is the
relator ’ s bur den to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus
relief. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Here, the record is inadequate to grant
mandamus relief.
For the s e reason s , we de ny Burden’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

Scott E. Stevens Justice
Date Submitted : October 28 , 2020 Date Decided : October 29 , 2020
Do Not Publish
#### § 17.94 Outpatient medical services for military retirees and other beneficiaries.

Outpatient medical services for military retirees and other beneficiaries for which charges shall be made as required by § 17.101, may be authorized for persons properly referred by authorized officials of other Federal agencies for which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may agree to render such service under the conditions stipulated by the Secretary and pensioners of nations allied with the United States in World War I and World War II when duly authorized.

[32 FR 13815, Oct. 4, 1967, as amended at 45 FR 6937, Jan. 31, 1980; 47 FR 58249, Dec. 30, 1982. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21965, 21967, May 13, 1996]
Editorial Note on Part 3
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

§ 3.256 Eligibility reporting requirements. ( a ) *Obligation to report changes in factors affecting entitlement.* Any individual who has applied for or receives pension or parents' dependency and indemnity compensation must promptly notify the Secretary of any change affecting entitlement in any of the following: ( 1 ) Income;
( 2 ) Net worth or corpus of estate;
( 3 ) Marital status;
( 4 ) Nursing home patient status;
( 5 ) School enrollment status of a child 18 years of age or older; or
( 6 ) Any other factor that affects entitlement to benefits under the provisions of this part.
( b ) *Eligibility verification reports.* ( 1 ) For purposes of this section the term eligibility verification report means a form prescribed by the Secretary that is used to request income, net worth (if applicable), dependency status, and any other information necessary to determine or verify entitlement to pension or parents' dependency and indemnity compensation.
( 2 ) VA will not require old law or section 306 pensioners to submit eligibility verification reports unless the Secretary determines that doing so is necessary to preserve program integrity.
( 3 ) Except for a parent who has attained 72 years of age and has been paid dependency and indemnity compensation during two consecutive calendar years, the Secretary shall require an eligibility verification report from individuals receiving parents' dependency and indemnity compensation under the following circumstances: ( i ) If the Social Security Administration has not verified the beneficiary's Social Security number and, if the beneficiary is married, his or her spouse's Social Security number.
( ii ) If there is reason to believe that the beneficiary or, if the spouse's income could affect entitlement, his or her spouse may have received income other than Social Security during the current or previous calendar year; or
( iii ) If the Secretary determines that an eligibility verification report is necessary to preserve program integrity.
( 4 ) An individual who applies for or receives pension or parents' dependency and indemnity compensation as defined in §§ 3.3 or 3.5 of this part shall, as a condition of receipt or continued receipt of benefits, furnish the Department of Veterans Affairs an eligibility verification report upon request.
( c ) If VA requests that a claimant or beneficiary submit an eligibility verification report but he or she fails to do so within 60 days of the date of the VA request, the Secretary shall suspend the award or disallow the claim.
(Authority: Sec. 306(a)(2) and (b)(3), Pub. L. 95-588, 92 Stat. 2508-2509; 38 U.S.C. 1315(e))
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control numbers 2900-0101 and 2900-0624) [63 FR 53595, Oct. 6, 1998, as amended at 66 FR 56614, Nov. 9, 2001; 73 FR 40466, July 15, 2008]
INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
                             THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    NUMBER                                                       SHARES
---------------                                             ------------------
$
---------------                                             ------------------
                               SPATIALIGHT, INC.               COMMON STOCK
                                                              $.01 PAR VALUE

                                                             CUSIP 847248 10 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS CERTIFIES THAT





is the owner of
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, $.01 PAR VALUE, OF

  SpatiaLight, Inc. transferable on th books of the Corporation by the holder
     hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this
   certificate properly endorsed. This certificate and the shares represented
 hereby are subject to the laws of the State of New York and to the Certificate
    of Incorporation and the By-laws of the Corporation as from time to time
                                    amended.
     This  certficiate is not valid unless  countersigned  and registered by the
Transfer Agent and Registrar.
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  SpatiaLight,  Inc. has caused its facsimile  corporate
seal and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officert of be hereunto
affixed.

                              CERTIFICATE OF STOCK

Dated:

                                SPATIALIGHT, INC.
                                   CORPORATE
                                      SEAL
                                    NEW YORK
                                      1989
/s/ Sandra J. Harrison                                   /s/ Laurence Matteson
   ASSISTANT SECRETARY                                   CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD


COUNTERSIGNE AND REGISTERED:
AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
                         TRANSFER AGENT
                          AND REGISTRAR
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-19-00359-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-285747-16

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Gabriel and Kerr, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

ERIC MAHROUM, Appellant

V.

TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND TEXAS HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On February 28, 2020, we notified appellant that his brief had not been filed as 

the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant filed with 

the court an appellant’s brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining the 

brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 

38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal.

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 26, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Morgan Keegan, Inc. Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 31, 2000 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>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,496
<RECEIVABLES>                                  762,341
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                            653,982
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                           30,825
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            477,112
<PP&E>                                          27,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,057,532
<SHORT-TERM>                                   156,384
<PAYABLES>                                   1,028,781
<REPOS-SOLD>                                   305,079
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                              6,610
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                              93,528
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,851
<OTHER-SE>                                     249,543
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,057,532
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               38,942
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            28,976
<COMMISSIONS>                                   35,024
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   12,425
<FEE-REVENUE>                                   16,133
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,042
<COMPENSATION>                                  65,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,673
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,673
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,873
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34



</TABLE>
PLEADING.

[Franklin Circuit Court,

January Term, 1888.]

Stewart, Shauck and Shearer, JJ.

#### *CORNELIUS N. CAMPEN v. JOHN F. MURRAY ET AL.

Repetition of like matter in different counts stricken out.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas of Franklin county.

W. J. Gilmore and H. T. Pay, for the motion.

Pugh & Pugh, contra.

*

 This judgment was affirmed by the supreme court, without report, January 26, 1892. The case was cited by the common pleas, in Christie v. Werk, 1 Ohio Dec., 374, 375.

By the Court.

Where one of the defenses contained in an answer consists in whole or in ipart of a general or special denial of the facts stated in the petition, a like denial embraced in other defenses of such answer will be stricken out on motion.
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



     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Research Frontiers
Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert L. Saxe,
Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
     13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 Company.


/s/ Robert L. Saxe
    Robert L. Saxe
    Chairman of the Board and Chief Technology Officer
Date: August 7, 2009
Exhibit 33.2



MANAGEMENT’S ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE



Management of the Agency and Trust division of Citibank, N.A. (or “Company”) is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.



Management has determined that the servicing criteria in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB are applicable in regards to the reservicing platform as of and for the period as follows:



Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by American Honda Finance Corporation issued on or after January 1, 2006, as listed in Appendix A, for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services; or owner trustee services (the “Platform”).



Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by Item 1122(d) servicing criteria in regards to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Platform as to any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities the Company performs with respect to the Platform (the “Applicable Servicing Criteria”).  With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relates to remittances.



Period:  Twelve months ended March 31, 2023 (the “Period”).



With respect to the Platform as of and for the Period, the Company’s management provides the following assertion of compliance with respect to the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

• The Company’s management is responsible for assessing the Company’s compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


• The Company’s management has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.  In making this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB.


• Based on such assessment, the Company has complied, in all material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.


KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to management’s assertion of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as of and for the Period.



CITIBANK, N.A.



By:   /s/ James W Maitland



Its:   Managing Director



Dated: May 25, 2023

















---

Appendix A



Asset-backed Transactions and Securities Constituting the Platform



Deal Name



HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2018-4 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2019-2 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2019-4 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2020-2 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2021-1 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2021-3 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2022-1 OWNER TRUST

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 2023-1 OWNER TRUST















---
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 34660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13674]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

Economic Impact Policy

    This notice is to inform the public that the Export-Import Bank of 
the United States has received an application for a $99 million 
comprehensive loan guarantee to support the export of approximately 
$110.4 million worth of aluminum beverage cans and ends manufacturing 
equipment to China. The U.S. exports will enable the Chinese company to 
produce approximately 2.8 billion aluminum cans per year. In addition, 
the foreign buyer will expand its existing annual ends production 
capacities by 2.6 billion ends for 2-piece cans, and by 1.3 billion 
ends for 3-piece cans.
    Available information indicates that this new foreign aluminum cans 
and ends production will be entirely sold and consumed in China. 
Interested parties may submit comments on this transaction by email to 
economic.impact@exim.gov or by mail to 811 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 
442, Washington, DC 20571, within 14 days of the date this notice 
appears in the Federal Register.

Angela Mariana Freyre,
Senior Vice President and General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2013-13674 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
```
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-4597

_____________________________

PAMELA NIELSON,

Appellant,

v.

DAVID CONOWAL,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John Jay Gontarek, Judge.

September 27, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Wendy Loquasto of Fox & Loquasto, LLC, Tallahassee; Stephanie 

M. Ockunzzi of Legal Services of North Florida, Inc., Fort Walton 

Beach, for Appellant.

David Conowal, pro se, Appellee.
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.2605 Request for reconsideration. ( a ) *Time for filing a request.* The request for reconsideration must be filed with the designated independent reviewer within 60 calendar days from the date of the demand letter received by the MA organization.
( b ) *Content of request.* ( 1 ) The request for reconsideration must be in writing and specify the findings or issues with which the MA organization disagrees.
( 2 ) The MA organization must include with its request all supporting documentary evidence it wishes the independent reviewer to consider. ( i ) This material must be submitted in the format requested by CMS.
( ii ) Documentation, evidence, or substantiation submitted after the filing of the reconsideration request will not be considered.
( c ) *CMS rebuttal.* CMS may file a rebuttal to the MA organization's reconsideration request. ( 1 ) The rebuttal must be submitted within 30 calendar days of the review entity's notification to CMS that it has received the MA organization's reconsideration request.
( 2 ) CMS sends its rebuttal to the MA organization at the same time it is submitted to the independent reviewer.
( d ) *Review entity.* An independent reviewer conducts the reconsideration. The independent reviewer reviews the demand for repayment, the evidence and findings upon which it was based and any supporting documentation that the MA organization or CMS submitted in accordance with this section.
( e ) *Notification of decision.* The independent reviewer informs the CMS and the MA organization of its decision in writing.
( f ) *Effect of decision.* A reconsideration decision is final and binding unless the MA organization requests a hearing official review in accordance with § 422.2610.
( g ) *Right to hearing official review.* An MA organization that is dissatisfied with the independent reviewer's reconsideration decision is entitled to a hearing official review as provided in § 422.2610.
Drone Pre-Flight Checklist

√ ITEM

Inspect aircraft for damage

Inspect propellers for damage; scratched or damaged propellers may cause 

aircraft to be out of balance. Ensure propellers are securely fastened.

Install 2 black propellers.

Install 2 silver propellers.

Ensure propellers are securely fastened.

Check battery to ensure full charge.

Check battery on remote controller.

Remove gimbal clamp from camera.

Power on procedure:

 1. Remote Controller

 2. Mobile Device

 3. Aircraft

*Press power button once, then again and hold for 2 seconds.

Ensure mobile device is in passive mode to avoid calls/texts during flight. 

Power up everything and make sure image exists in controller app.

Calibrate the compass.

Home Point (requires GPS) - the aircraft status indicator will flash slow green 

indicating that the Home Point has been set.

"Arm" motors to test and insure proper operation.

After flight, power down all equipment in reverse order of power on 

procedure.

P-mode (Positioning): P-mode works best when the GPS signal is strong. There are three 

different versions of P-mode, which will be automatically selected by the Phantom 3 Advanced 

depending on GPS signal strength and the Vision Positioning sensors:

1. P-GPS: GPS and Vision Positioning both are available; the aircraft is using GPS for 

positioning.

2. P-OPTI: Vision Positioning is available but a sufficient GPS signal is not available. 

Aircraft is using only Vision Positioning for position holding.

3. P-ATTI: Neither GPS nor Vision Positioning is available, the aircraft is using only its 

barometer for positioning, so only altitude is maintained.

A-mode (Attitude): GPS and Vision Positioning System are not used for stabilization. The 

aircraft uses only its barometer to stabilize. The aircraft can automatically return to the Home 

Point if remote controller signal is lost and the Home Point was recorded successfully.

F-mode (Function): Intelligent Orientation Control (IOC) is activated in this mode. For more 

information about IOC, refer to the IOC section in the Appendix. By default, the Flight Mode 

Switch is locked to P-mode. To unlock other flight modes, launch the DJI GO app, enter the 

“Camera” page, and tap “Mode”, then activate “Multiple Flight Mode”.