alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00021

- CV
In the Interest of L.T. ET AL , Children
From the 224th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016PA01683 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Irene Rios, Justice
Delivered and Filed: March 14, 2018
DI S MISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION On January 9, 2018, Associate Judge Charles Montemayor signed an order terminating Appellant’s parental rights to her children. On January 10, 2018, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. On January 11, 2018, Appellant timely filed a request for a de novo hea ring to the referring court. On March 7, 2018, Appellant filed a Wi thdrawal of Notice of Appeal, stating that because the de novo hearing is currently pending in the trial court, no final order has been entered in this case. Generally, an appeal may be t aken from a final judgment only

. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. 2001). Because Appellant filed a request for a de novo hearing , Appellant’s notice of appeal is premature as there is no final judgment in th e underlying case. See
C.R.

- A.A

. , 2016 WL 6238327, at *1 (“[A]n associate judge’ s recommendation is not a final, appealable order when a request for a d e novo hearing is timely filed.” )

.04

- 18

- 00021

- CV

- 2

- Accordingly, we conclude this court does not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s attempted appeal. We grant Appellant’s motion to withdraw the notice of appeal , and we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We deny any other pending motions

as moot.
PER CURIAM
August 17, 2021 

Mr. Andrew Nash 

Managing Director

Morgan Stanley 

1633 Broadway 

New York, New York 10019 

Dear Mr. Nash: 

This is in response to the request by Morgan Stanley, New York, 

New York, for approval to determine the risk-weighted asset (RWA) amount for 

default fund contributions to qualifying central counterparties (QCCPs) in Japan 

under an alternative method available under section 217.133(d)(6)(vi) of the 

Board’s capital rule.1

Advanced approaches banking organizations must use the 

standardized approach for counterparty credit risk (SA-CCR) when calculating 

RWA amounts for exposures covered by SA-CCR, beginning January 1, 2022. 

Board-regulated institutions using SA-CCR must, in certain circumstances, 

calculate the RWA amount for contributions to a QCCP’s default fund using the 

QCCP’s hypothetical capital requirement (KCCP) as calculated by (1) the 

Board-regulated institution using SA-CCR or (2) a substantially identical 

methodology in a foreign jurisdiction.2

 In Japan, the implementation of a 

methodology substantially identical to SA-CCR will not be in effect by January 1, 

2022, and instead is expected to take effect later in 2022. 

The capital rule provides that a Board-regulated institution that has 

adopted SA-CCR may, with the prior approval of the Board, calculate its RWA 

amount for a default fund contribution to a QCCP using method 1 of the default 

1

 See 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(vi); see also 12 CFR 217.132(c). 

2

 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(ii). 
2

fund contribution framework under subpart D of the capital rule rather than under 

the default fund contribution framework under subpart E of the capital rule, which 

is based on SA-CCR.

3

 Morgan Stanley requests approval to calculate the RWA 

amount for its default fund contributions to QCCPs in Japan using method 1,

beginning January 1, 2022, or, if earlier, on the first day of the calendar quarter 

that Morgan Stanley begins using SA-CCR for purposes of the capital rule through 

the day that is 30 days after the effective date in Japan of a methodology 

substantially identical to SA-CCR. 

Based on all the facts of record, the Director of the Division of 

Supervision and Regulation, acting under authority delegated by the Board, has 

granted Morgan Stanley’s request.4

 This decision is based on the specific facts 

and representations in the request and in related communications with Board staff. 

Any change in these facts or representations should be communicated immediately 

to Board staff and could result in a different conclusion. Morgan Stanley should 

notify Board staff if a methodology substantially similar to SA-CCR is not 

effective in Japan by January 1, 2023.

Please contact David Lynch, Deputy Associate Director, Division of 

Supervision and Regulation (202-452-2081), with any questions.

 

 Very truly yours,

Margaret McCloskey Shanks

Deputy Secretary of the Board

3

 12 CFR 217.133(d)(6)(vi) (referring to 12 CFR 217.35(d)(3)(ii)).

4

 This approval is limited to QCCPs that have not provided a KCCP to Morgan Stanley. 

See 12 CFR 217.133(d)(5).
No. 55729.

protests 169949-K, etc. (New York).

#### Gregory Abramovitch et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**Ernst
                  & Young**LLP
                Phone:
                  (216)861-5000Suite
                  1300
                www.ey.com925
                  Euclid AvenueCleveland,
                  Ohio 44115
 
  Report
        on
        Management's Assertion on Compliance
 with
        the
        Specified Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
 *Uniform
        Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*
  Report
        of
        Independent Accountants
   Board
        of
        Directors
 National
        City Mortgage Co.
  We
        have
        examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying report titled *Report
        of Management,* that
        National City Mortgage Co. (NCM) complied with the minimum
        servicing standards identified in Exhibit A to the *Report
        of Management* (the
        specific minimum servicing standards) as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers
        Association of
        America's *Uniform
        Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers* during
        the year- ended
        December 31, 2005. Management is responsible for NCM's compliance with the
        specified minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an
        opinion on management's assertions about NCM's compliance based on our
        examination.
  Our
        examination was made in accordance with attestation standards established
        by the Public
        Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
        on a test basis, evidence about NCM's compliance with the specified minimum
        servicing standards and performing such other procedures as we considered
        necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides
        a
        reasonable basis
        for
        our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on NCM's
        compliance with specified minimum servicing standards.
  In our
        opinion, management's assertion that NCM complied with the aforementioned specified
        minimum servicing standards during the year ended December 31, 2005, is fairly
        stated, in all material respects.
  **/s/
        Ernst & Young
        LLP**
   March
        1,
        2006
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 MINUTE ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

DAVIS, et al.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COUNTY OF KING, et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C02-2440RSM

MINUTE ORDER

The following minute order is made by the direction of the court, the Honorable Marsha J.

Pechman:

A telephone conference was held in the above-entitled matter on August 11, 2005 at

approximately 2:00 p.m.; present were the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman, Senior Law Clerk Steven

Crozier, Plaintiff’s counsel William Broberg and defense counsel Timothy Gosselin and Thomas

Miller.

All counsel were heard on a number of issues related to the conduct of depositions of two of

the individual police officer defendants, Officers Rayborn and Keller. At the conclusion of the

discussion, the Court ruled as follows:

1. None of the individual police officer defendants are required to give their home

addresses.

2. Any party to the litigation is permitted to be present at any deposition held in the

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 2
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 MINUTE ORDER

course of the lawsuit.

3. The parties are to make themselves available for depositions for a period of up to seven

hours per person.

Filed this 11th day of August, 2005.

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By /s Mary Duett

Deputy Clerk

Case 2:02-cv-02440-RSM Document 92 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 59828.

#### Close & Stewart *v.*United States,

protest 177329-K (Seattle).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of veal similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Swift & Company et al.*v. *United States*(33 Cust. Ct. 212, C. D. 1655), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
01 

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CHARLES HEWETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. C06-0918-JPD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN

FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. No. 1) is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff does not appear to have funds available to afford the $350.00 filing fee.

(1) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to plaintiff’s counsel, and to

issue summonses to plaintiff’s counsel to enable proper service of the complaint on the

appropriate parties. Plaintiff shall note that it is her or her attorney’s responsibility to

serve copies of the complaint properly along with appropriate summonses as required by

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(2) The Clerk is directed to send to plaintiff’s counsel a copy of the Notice of Initial

Assignment and Consent to Proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.

DATED this 6th day of July, 2006. AJAMES P. DONOHUE

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00918-TSZ Document 2 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 1
September 21, 1955

No. 59300.

protest 214600-K.

#### Page N. Goffigon *v.*United States,

C. D. 1722. Motion of Government for rehearing denied.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 24-A

                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

     KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned constitutes and
appoints CLARENCE J. BAUDHUIN his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent
with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name,
place and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign a Form S-3 Registration
Statement for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission respecting the
registration of shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value, of Zila, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, together with any and all amendments (including
post-effective amendments) to such Registration Statement, and to file the same
with all exhibits thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting such attorney-in-fact and agent
full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such attorney-in-fact and agent may lawfully do or cause to
be done by virtue hereof.

DATED: July 7 , 1997
      -------


                                        /s/ Joseph Hines
                                        ------------------------------
                                        JOSEPH HINES

STATE OF ARIZONA           }
                           }   ss.
County of Maricopa         }


     On this 7 day of July , 1997, before me, the undersigned Notary Public,
personally appeared Joseph Hines, known to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same
for the purposes therein contained.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



                                        /s/  Janice Backus
                                        ------------------------------
                                        Notary Public

My commission expires: October 23, 1997
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

NEIL GRENNING,

Plaintiff,

v.

EILEEN W. BISSON, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No. C06-5298RJB

ORDER GRANTING 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO

RESPOND TO MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The Court, having considered Plaintiff’s most recent request for an extension of time (Doc. 6),

2006, and the records and files herein, does hereby find and ORDER:

(1) Plaintiff wishes to have more time to file his reply to Defendant Pero’s motion for summary

judgment (Doc. 58). Defendant Pero does not object. Accordingly, it is appropriate to grant one last

extension of time to allow Plaintiff the opportunity to file any final briefing, evidence, argument or

pleading, not only in reply to Defendant Pero’s motion for summary judgment, but also in opposition to

the other pending motion for summary judgment, which was originally filed on April 4, 2007. Plaintiff

shall have until January 30, 2008 to provide the Clerk with any opposition pleadings or documentation to

these motions. The motions will be considered shortly thereafter. 

(2) The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel of record

DATED this 9thth day of January, 2008.

/s/ J. Kelley Arnold J. KELLEY ARNOLD

United States District Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05298-RJB Document 63 Filed 01/09/08 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------




                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005-33CB
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-33CB


         The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.




/s/ Craig Baingo                                   Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Kevin Meyers                                   Dated: March 28, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
No. 58336.

protests 175467-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dodge & Olcott, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of camphor oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *Orbis Products Corp.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 244, C. D. 1527), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 18

- 4596

_____________________________
R ANDY A LLEN C HESSER ,
Petitioner
,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Respondent

.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel

— Original Jurisdiction

.

January 10, 2019

P ER C URIAM

. The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the merits.

W OLF , L EWIS , and W ETHERELL , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ No t final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Randy Allen Chesser, pro se
, Petitioner

. Ashley Brooke Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Respondent

.
__ 

_____________ 

DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR 


SERVICE OF NOTICE, PROCESS, ORDERS 


DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS 


ATTENTION DOCKET SECTION, C-55 

___...=;"'-'-!"'-"-"-'---=:.......:-'-_________________, having its principal Office 


(Name of Company, please print) 

at~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~________________________ 

(address) 

Hereby designates, pursuant to section 46103 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code (formerly section 1005(b) of the Federal Aviation Act 

of 1958, as amended) the person named below as its Agent upon whom service of all notices processes and all orders, decision, 

and requirements of the Department of Transportation may be made for and on behalf of said carrier, hereby canceling all 

previous designations of agents made by it to the DOT. 

NameofAgent __________J~o~s~hwR~o~m~a~no~w~________________________ 

Address Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037 

The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space: 

le __--;-L..~.::.1:===:::...---------- (InitiaIS),____,r~-+....l ""''''''''',..-_____

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ____________...!.R~o!..Iy~aJ...1J!.,l>e:.!,.t--.:,\.l!:'-c:...=-_____________h,as caused these 

(Name of Company) 

presents to be signed in its name by __--=5"'--~....:..;;=-.:..:c==-O=_\_'\A'_=Cbot=ti;..,e.. l>-fe.t.\&entc\ GIIRllfid C81:!ft:!!eI/ 

~ 

(Please Print) 

Attorney-in- Fact of said company, and to be attested under its corporate seal by ~~ \l 

(Secretary, or other Title) 

On this ____day 

(Giell@Fal C,wpsel/Quol:Aey in faM) 

~e.&\ k"C\"1 c.<=. 0 ATTEST: 

(Secretary, or other officer) 

OST F 1010.5 (1-98)
No. 51800.

#### Fownes Bros. & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 521191-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
Before the Second Division,

November 13, 1967

No. P67/398.

#### Traveler Trading Co. *v.*United States, protests 59/31235, etc. (New York).

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of miniature knives similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Paul E. Sernau, Inc.*v. *United States*(46 Cust. Ct. 514, Abstract 65737), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,835,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               28,739,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                   820,064
<INVENTORY>                                 24,392,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            54,913,952
<PP&E>                                      21,043,170
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             103,259,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       41,947,914
<BONDS>                                      6,464,982
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                        25,578
<OTHER-SE>                                  53,802,168
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               103,259,012
<SALES>                                     40,458,106
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            40,458,106
<CGS>                                       32,923,941
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               32,923,941
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             708,360
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                784,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            784,540
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   784,540
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 5.1

                                                                 Direct Dial No.
                                                                   (602)528-4000



                                 June 3, 1998

VIA EDGAR

SuperShuttle International, Inc.
4610 S. 35th Street   
Phoenix, AZ 85040      

      RE:   SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
            Registration Statement on Form S-1

Ladies and Gentlemen:

      This firm is counsel for SuperShuttle International, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), with respect to the sale of up to 3,818,000 shares
of the Company's $.01 par value common stock (the "Shares"), which are the
subject of a Form S-1 Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended (the "Registration Statement"). The Shares, which include an
over-allotment option granted by the Company and certain stockholders to the
Underwriters to purchase up to 498,000 additional shares of the Company's Common
Stock, are to be sold to the Underwriters by the Company and certain
stockholders of the Company as described in the Registration Statement for
resale to the public. As such counsel, we are familiar with the Certificate of
Incorporation and Bylaws of the Company, as well as resolutions adopted by its
Board of Directors authorizing the issuance and sale of the Shares. In addition,
we have examined such documents and undertaken such further inquiry as we
consider necessary for rendering the opinion set forth below:

      Based upon the foregoing, it is our opinion that the shares of Common
Stock of the Company, when issued as described in the Registration Statement,
will be duly and validly issued, fully paid and nonassessable.

      We acknowledge that we are referred to under the heading "Legal Matters"
of the prospectus which is part of the Registration Statement and we hereby
consent to such use of our name in such Registration Statement, including the
prospectus constituting a part thereof, and to any amendment or supplement
thereto.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          /s/ SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.
                                          Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P.