alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT

Appellate case name: Mahamet Keita v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-20-00176-CR, 01-20-00177-CR

Trial court case number: 1595699, 1595698

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

The Court abated these two appeals and remanded them to the trial court on June 3, 

2021. The abatement order directed the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether 

the certification of appellant’s right to appeal in each case was defective. If so, the order 

directed the trial court to execute an amended certification of appellant’s right to appeal in 

each case that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2. The district clerk 

has filed a supplemental clerk’s record in each case containing an amended certification of 

appellant’s right to appeal signed by the trial court stating that each appeal “is not a pleabargain case, and [appellant] has the right of appeal.”

Accordingly, we reinstate these two appeals on the Court’s active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ April L. Farris

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 10, 2021
Exhibit 99.1



                                  SAUCONY, INC.
                               13 Centennial Drive
                          Peabody, Massachusetts 01960



                                                 April 3, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, DC  20549

         Re:      Confirmation of Arthur Andersen Representations

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     This letter  confirms that Saucony,  Inc. (the "Company") has received from
Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen"),  the independent  public accountant engaged by
the Company to examine the Company's  financial  statements that are included in
the Annual  Report on Form 10-K to which this letter is filed as an  exhibit,  a
representation letter addressed to the Company and stating that:

o    the audit  conducted by Andersen was subject to Andersen's  quality control
     system for the U.S.  accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable
     assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance with professional
     standards; and

o    there was  appropriate  continuity  of  Andersen  personnel  working on the
     audit,  availability of national office  consultation  and  availability of
     personnel  at  foreign  affiliates  of  Andersen  to conduct  the  relevant
     portions of the audit.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 SAUCONY, INC.



                                 By:____________________________
                                      Michael Umana
                                      Senior Vice President
                                      Chief Operating and Financial Officer
                                      Treasurer
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:02-cv-04393-JS Document 37-3 Filed 12/01/2004 Page 6 of 6
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00119-CV

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

v.

City of Pharr, Texas

On appeal from the

92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-2246-15-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

the party incurring same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 1, 2019
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BERNARD MAMBO,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 10-72081

Agency No. A096-142-750

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 9, 2012** 

Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

Bernard Mambo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to

reconsider. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for an

abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider. Cano-Merida v.

FILED

OCT 15 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 10-72081

INS, 311 F.3d 960, 964 (9th Cir. 2002). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Mambo’s motion to

reconsider his withholding of removal claim in light of this court’s disfavored

group cases, because Mambo did not demonstrate sufficient individualized risk to

show it is more likely than not he would be persecuted. See Halim v. Holder, 590

F.3d 971, 979 (9th Cir. 2009); Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1066 (9th Cir.

2009) (“[a]n applicant for withholding of removal will need to adduce a

considerably larger quantum of individualized-risk evidence to prevail than would

an asylum applicant”). We reject Mambo’s request that the court reconsider its

stance regarding a pattern or practice of persecution. We do not consider the 2010

report Mambo attached to his opening brief. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963

(9th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (this court’s review is limited to the administrative

record).

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to review Mambo’s contentions related to

asylum and equitable tolling of the one-year bar requirement because he failed to

raise them to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001051860
<NAME> SCOVILL HOLDINGS
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,441
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,425
<INVENTORY>                                     19,780
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,062
<PP&E>                                          88,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                  32,501
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,776
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,846
<BONDS>                                        151,638
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,607)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,776
<SALES>                                         68,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                68,324
<CGS>                                           48,727
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   60,676
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,544)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    64
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,510)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       131
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,641)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,641)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Brian R. Ervine,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of EvolvingSystems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                      |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian R. Ervine                                                          |   |
| Executive Vice  President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |
| November 12, 2008                                                   |   |

 

 

This certificationis furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent requiredby such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification willnot be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under theSecurities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extentthat we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FITZ GREEN : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. : NO. 02-4433

SCHEDULING ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2002, based upon the case status

reports filed by the parties hereto, it is ORDERED:

1. All discovery in this case is to be completed by DECEMBER 31, 2002 .

2. All dispositive motions are due five (5) days after the discovery period.

3. The case will be placed in the trial pool (published in The Legal

Intelligencer) on JANUARY 27, 2003 .

4. At least seven (7) days prior to the case being listed in the pool as set

forth in paragraph 3, all parties will file their respective pretrial memorandums, which shall

include all items set forth in paragraph 8 of the Pretrial and Trial Procedures Before Judge

Ronald L. Buckwalter. A copy of the pretrial memorandums shall be sent to opposing counsel

and unrepresented parties. Unless otherwise ordered, counsel need not submit a pretrial

memorandum, if a dispositive motion is filed, until after the Court’s ruling on the motion. If

necessary, pretrial memos are due 7 days after the Court’s ruling on the motion.

5. If requested by counsel, the court will hold a pretrial conference, but no

such conference will ordinarily be scheduled in the absence of a request.

RONALD L. BUCKWALTER, J.

 BY: 

 Matthew J. Higgins

 Deputy Clerk

Case 2:02-cv-04433-RB Document 6 Filed 09/09/2002 Page 1 of 1
IRC Handout March 1, 2018

Part 2

SUPPLEMENT

USSGL 

Acct. USSGL Account Title

Anticipated

Budg/ 

Prop

Norm 

Bal

Begin

/ End

Debit/ 

Credit

Auth 

Type 

Code

Apport 

Cat

Apport 

Cat B

Avail 

Time

BEA 

Cat

Borrow 

Source

Budgetary 

Impact 

Indicator

Cohort 

Year

Cust/ 

Noncust

Exch/ 

Nonexch

Fed/ 

Nonfed

Trading 

Prtnr

Trading 

Partner 

Main

PY

Adj DEFC

Pgm 

Rpt 

Cat

Reimb 

Flag

Year 

of 

BA

Reduction 

Type Fund Type

Reporting 

Type 

Code

Financing 

Account 

Code

TAS 

Status

Trans. 

Code

131900 Allowance for Loss on Accounts Receivable N P C B/E D/C A/S N ### /#### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

132500 Taxes Receivable N P D B/E D/C A/S N ### #### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

137300 Administrative Fees Receivable - Taxes N P D B/E D/C A/S N ### #### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

403200 Estimated Indefinite Contract Authority Y B D E D/C D/M A/B/C/D/

E/F/G/H/

Q***

EG/EP/ER/ET E/F/U N U X/K/N

599300 Offset to Non-Entity Collections - Statement of Changes in Net 

Position

N P D E D/C D/E A G/Z ### #### CF/DF/EC/EG/EM/EP/ER/ES/ET/GA/TR/UG/US/UT E/F/U D/G/N U/E X/K/N

*** NOTE: For purposes of this handout, we are only 

illustrating one USSGL Account reflecting the updates to the 

DEFC Attribute Domain Value. See the Summary of Changes 

for a complete list of USSGL Accounts for which this attribute 

 

Fiscal Year 2018 Reporting

Section IV

U.S. Standard General Ledger - Attributes to Accounts Report

U S S G L A C C O U N T USSGL ATTRIBUTES B U L K F I L E A T T R I B U T E S T A S A T T R I B U T E S
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EXTENDICARE HEALTH SERVICES, INC. FOR THE
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,559
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  247,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,015
<INVENTORY>                                      9,840
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               280,400
<PP&E>                                         900,203
<DEPRECIATION>                                 201,304
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,250,050
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          189,748
<BONDS>                                        684,513
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     285,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,250,050
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               583,506
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  485,009
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 5,055
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              30,103
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,006
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,255
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,208
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        4
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        4
        

</TABLE>
# Data

&"Calibri,Bold"&16&KFF0000DRAFT	

&"Arial,Bold"&10Bulletin No. 2019-02	&"Arial,Bold"VII VSR - &P	&"Arial,Bold"&10IRC Handout 12/4/18
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 77 Filed 08/10/2004 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 77 Filed 08/10/2004 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 77 Filed 08/10/2004 Page 3 of 3
Before the Second Division,

November 9, 1954

No. 58495.

petition 6968-R (Milwaukee).

#### Tri State Distributing Co. *v.*United States,

*417Opinion by

Ford, J.

At tbe trial, the vice president of the petitioner testified that, in making entry of the merchandise involved, he used the invoice price of the factory in Switzerland and that he supplied the customs officials with the invoices and all other information which he had at that time with reference to the value of the-watches. Following *Syndicate Trading Co.*v. *United States*(13 Ct. Cust. Appls. 409, T. D. 41339) and *Crebstein*v. *United States*(15 Ct. Cust. Appls. 285, T. D. 42470), it was held that there was no intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 50917.

#### Protest 25833-K of Olavarria & Co. (Tampa).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

An examination of the record failing to disclose anything to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protest was overruled.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 22, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00635

- CV

Frank GARZA

, Appellant

v.

Kris Angel FINN

, Appelle e

From the County Court a t Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CV04020 The Honorable Robert Behrens, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’s brief was due November 14, 2016

. Neither the brief nor a motion for

extension of time to file the brief has been filed.

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file his appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the brief in this court on or before December 22.

2016

. If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this brief on appellant and appellee’s

counsel.

__ _______________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 22nd day of November, 2 016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Part 1 DRAFT

4

USSGL 

Account 

Number Begin/End

Auth Type 

Code Fed/NonFed

USSGL 

Account 

Number Begin/End

Auth Type 

Code Fed/NonFed

119305 E 417200 E P F

119306 E 417200 E S F

119307 E 432000 E

119309 E 435400 E P

404400 E 439701 E P

417100 E P F

417100 E S F

469000 E

Edit Rule Number:

Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting

Section VII

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

SUPPLEMENT

Left Side Attribute Combination Right Side Attribute Combination

Fund Resources Equals Fund Equities

The sum of USSGL accounts that comprise Fund Resources must equal the sum of USSGL accounts that constitute Fund 

Equities.

SS: USSGL / USSGL

Equal (=)

10, 11, 12

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09

Rule Name:

Description:

Type:

Operand:

Fatal Period:

Proposed Analytical 

Period:

Bulletin No. 2020-08 DRAFT VII EDR - 1 IRC Handout 12/5/19
Part 1 DRAFT

SUPPLEMENT

Edit Rule Number: 68

Rule Name:

Description:

Type:

Operand:

Fatal Period:

Proposed Analytical 

Period:

Statement Line Number Operand BETC

USSGL account 411300 - Appropriated 

Receipts Derived from 

Unavailable Trust or Special 

Fund Receipts

+ APSPCEXP

USSGL account 435500 - Cancellation of 

Appropriation From 

Unavailable Receipts

+ SRRCTEXP

USSGL account 438700 - Temporary 

Reduction of Appropriaton 

from Unavailable Receipts, 

New Budget Authority

+ SRRTYEDR

USSGL account 438800 - Temporay Reduction 

of Appropriation from 

Unavailable Receipts, PriorYear Balance

+

The sum of the ending balances in USSGL accounts 411300, 435500, 438700, and 438800 must equal the balance of 

BETCs related to Unappropriated Special and Trust Funds in CARS.

Fiscal Year 2019 Reporting

Section VII

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Edits - Detail Report

Budgetary Resources Derived from Unavailable Unappropriated Special and Trust Fund Receipt Accounts

LS: Statement Line / SMAF

Equal (=)

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12

Left Side Attribute Combination Right Side Attribute Combination

Bulletin No. 2020-08 DRAFT VII EDR - 2 IRC Handout 12/5/19
# C_2016350EN.01001901.xml

| 26.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/19

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 1 August 2016 — Secretary of State for the Home Department v Franco Vomero

(Case C-424/16)

(2016/C 350/24)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Secretary of State for the Home Department

Applicant:

Defendant: Franco Vomero

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.
  If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Whether enhanced protection under article 28.3(a) (1) depends upon the possession of a right of permanent residence within article 16 and article 28.2.

1

If the answer to question one is in the negative, the following questions are also referred:

| 2. | Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is






  a. | a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Whether the period of residence for the previous ten years, to which article 28(3)(a) refers, is

a.

a simple calendar period looking back from the relevant date (here that of the decision to deport), including in it any periods of absence or imprisonment,

| b. | a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence, |
| --- | --- |

b.

a potentially non-continuous period, derived by looking back from the relevant date and adding together period(s) when the relevant person was not absent or in prison, to arrive, if possible, at a total of ten years’ previous residence,

| 3. | What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link. |
| --- | --- |

3.

What the true relationship is between the ten year residence test to which article 28(3)(a) refers and the overall assessment of an integrative link.

---

(1)  Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

1

OJ L 158, p. 77

---
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4341 — FCC/ALPINE)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 226/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----