alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Martin Mata, and wife Enna Fernandez 

Mata Individually and Fabrizio Mata, 

Appellants

No. 06-21-00089-CV v.

Argos USA LLC, Appellees

Appeal from the 61st District Court of 

Harris County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2018-

62967-D). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Stevens, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Carter* participating. 

*Justice Carter, Retired, Sitting by 

Assignment.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment and dismissal of all the appellants claims 

against Argos USA LLC.

We further order that the appellants, Martin Mata, Enna Fernandez Mata, and Fabrizio 

Mata, pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 22, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wendell PICHAY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 91-10571.

United States Court of Appeals, 'Ninth Circuit.

Dec. 14, 1992.

Decided Feb. 26, 1993.

*1260Rustam A. Barbee, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Honolulu, HI, for defendant-appellant.

Thomas Muehleck, Asst. U.S. Atty., Honolulu, HI, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before: WILLIAM A. NORRIS, BEEZER, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant argues that the prosecutor violated his right to equal protection, as secured under *Batson v. Kentucky, 476*U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), by using its peremptory challenges to systematically strike young persons from the jury solely on account of their age.

Neither the Supreme Court nor any circuit has held that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from striking venirepersons on account of youth. Accordingly, we now join the First Circuit and the Seventh Circuit in holding that young adults do not constitute a cognizable group for purposes of an equal protection challenge to the composition of a petit jury. *See United States v. Cresta,*825 F.2d 538, 545 (1st Cir.1987), *cert. denied,*486 U.S. 1042, 108 S.Ct. 2033, 100 L.Ed.2d 618 (1988); *United States v. Jackson,*983 F.2d 757, 762-63 (7th Cir.1993).

In an unpublished memorandum filed contemporaneously with this opinion, we AFFIRM appellant’s convictions for murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.
TEXAS COURT OF AP`PEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00077-CV

Norman Engel, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and Commissioner 

Cassie Brown, in Her Official Capacity; The State of Texas and the Attorney General of 

the State of Texas by and through Ken Paxton in His Official Capacity as Attorney General 

of the State of Texas; and Illinois National Insurance Company, Appellees

FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-GN-19-001342, THE HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on March 13, 

2023. On March 14, 2023, we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to his

failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. 

The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status 

report regarding this appeal by March 24, 2023. Further, the notice advised appellant that his

failure to comply with this request could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of 

prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this 

Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.

If a trial-court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to 

pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court 
2

may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established 

that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. Because 

appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s 

record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Justice

Before Justices Baker, Smith, and Jones*

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: April 21, 2023

*Before J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice (Retired), Third Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.

See Tex. Gov’t Code § 74.003(b).
No. 58489.

protest 216910-K (New York).

#### Federal Wine & Liquor Co. *v.*United States,

*415Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise, issues, and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the five cases of whisky reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as manifested, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
## IMPROVE Monitoring Data 2000-2004

Site Method Year N SO4 ExtinctionNO3

ExtinctionOMC

ExtinctionEC

ExtinctionSoil

Extinction LOST1 NIA 2000 19 19.98 15.96 17.78 4.49 0.85 LOST1 NIA 2001 24 21.52 29.33 9.19 2.84 0.72 LOST1 NIA 2002 24 20.14 23.33 7.58 2.26 0.5 LOST1 NIA 2003 24 18.57 19.4 9.15 2.4 0.63 LOST1 NIA 2004 24 26.78 26.71 11.57 2.22 0.41

Site Method Year N SO4 ExtinctionNO3

ExtinctionOMC

ExtinctionEC

ExtinctionSoil

Extinction THRO1 NIA 2000 21 16.4 13.61 11.81 3.26 0.76 THRO1 NIA 2001 22 18.77 17.7 6.67 2.69 1.01 THRO1 NIA 2002 19 20.83 10.7 5.85 1.9 1.2 THRO1 NIA 2003 21 17.7 10.34 16.43 3.36 0.97 THRO1 NIA 2004 23 13.96 16.35 13.35 2.52 0.55CM

ExtinctionSeaSalt

ExtinctionTotal

Particle Extinction

## Nitrate

% 5.19 0 

## 83.25 19.2% 4.75 0.87 

## 93.22 31.5% 2.64 0.11 

## 80.56 29.0% 4.35 0.05 

## 78.55 24.7% 2.73 0.27 

## 94.69 28.2%

CM ExtinctionSeaSalt

ExtinctionTotal

Particle Extinction

## Nitrate

% 5.61 0 

## 72.45 18.8% 4.52 0 

## 73.36 24.1% 5.58 0 

## 65.06 16.4% 5.39 0 

## 75.19 13.8% 2.99 0.35 

## 73.07 22.4%
Before the Second Division,

May 13, 1968

No. P68/236.

protests 63/7280, etc. (Seattle).

#### Gwin, White *&*Prince, Inc., and Harper, Robinson & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

BecrWORTH, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items of merchandise marked “A” or “B” covered by the foregoing protests consist of steel strips similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., and Heidner & Co.*v. *United States*(52 Cust Ct. 344, Abstract 68544), the claims of the plaintiffs were sustained.
No. 60781.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 275023-K (New York).

*509Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the issues are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *John P. Herber & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(30 Cust. Ct. 193, C. D. 1519), the protests were dismissed, and the matters were remanded to a single judge sitting in reappraisement for determination of the value of the merchandise in the manner provided by law (28 U. S. C. § 2636 (d)).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BARI & RICHARD HIMES : CIVIL ACTION

V. :

 

THE HOME DEPOT, USA, INC. : NO. 02-2774

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 14th day of January , 2004, upon

consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to strike the Plaintiff’s theory of liability based on the

alleged improper loading of the shopping cart, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is

GRANTED. 

BY THE COURT:

 

JACOB P. HART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-02774-BMS Document 25 Filed 01/16/2004 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION

v. :

: NO. 05-440-01

ALTON COLES :

O R D E R 

AND NOW, this 26th day of March 2024, upon consideration of Defendant Alton Coles’

(1) pro se Habeas Corpus Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct 

Sentence by a Person In Federal Custody (ECF No. 1624); (2) pro se Motion Pursuant to Rule 

15(c) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Supplemental Pleading (ECF No. 1647); (3) pro se 

Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 15(d) (ECF 

No. 1702), (4) pro se Memorandum of Law in Support of 2255 Motion (ECF No. 1741); (5) 

Supplemental Memorandum of Law Addressing the Necessity for the Court to Have an 

Evidentiary Hearing on his Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (ECF No. 1816); and (6) Motion to Expand the Record (ECF No. 1574), and all 

documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as follows: 

1. Defendant’s Motions for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF Nos. 1624, 1647, 

1702, 1741, 1816) are DENIED; 

2. Defendant’s Motion to Expand the Record (1574) is GRANTED with respect to 

Defendant’s attempted filing with the Third Circuit and DENIED with respect to the 

remainder of the documents sought. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 2:05-cr-00440-RBS Document 1930 Filed 03/26/24 Page 1 of 2
2

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ R. Barclay Surrick 

R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.

Case 2:05-cr-00440-RBS Document 1930 Filed 03/26/24 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 221 (Friday, November 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 80478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25159]



[[Page 80478]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252

[Docket DARS-2023-0005; Req No. DARS-2024-00010-FR]
RIN 0750-AK35


Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Export-
Controlled Items (DFARS Case 2018-D053)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: DoD is withdrawing the proposed rule to amend the Defense 
Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) for the case titled: 
Export-Controlled Items (DFARS Case 2018-D053). The decision not to 
proceed with a final rule has been made because of a change in the 
associated policy requirements for certain contractors to provide 
export authorizations. Accordingly, this proposed rule is withdrawn, 
and the DFARS case is closed.

DATES: The proposed rule published on March 22, 2023, at 88 FR 17357 is 
withdrawn as of November 17, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kimberly Bass, telephone 703-717-
3446.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    DoD published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on March 22, 
2023, at 88 FR 17357 to amend the DFARS to implement a policy that 
would enable the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) to obtain 
export authorizations from certain contractors, specifically, when a 
contract required government quality assurance surveillance oversight 
and had delivery to, or production or performance in, government 
quality assurance countries. The DMCA policy was to require the 
contractor to provide relevant export authorizations (i.e., export 
license exemptions, export license exceptions, export licenses, or 
other approvals) to the cognizant DCMA administrative contracting 
officer along with contact information for the empowered official or 
the export point of contact. Government quality assurance countries 
include the following countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, 
Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, 
Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
    The rule is withdrawn pending development of updated policy 
requirements.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 212, 225, and 252

    Government procurement.

Jennifer D. Johnson,
Editor/Publisher, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
[FR Doc. 2023-25159 Filed 11-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6001-FR-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOLORES (DEE) BARRETT : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : NO. 02-CV-4421

THE GREATER HATBORO CHAMBER :

OF COMMERCE, INC., JOHN J. (BUD) :

AIKEN, and MICKEY GLANTZ : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Anita F. Alberts, Esquire, being duly sworn and according to law, hereby certify that a true and

correct copy of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Discovery Order and

supporting Memorandum of Law was served upon counsel for defendants by First Class Mail, Postage

Prepaid, at the address and on the date listed below.

Sidney L. Gold, Esquire

LOVITZ & GOLD, P.C.

Suite 515, Eleven Penn Center

1835 Market Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Date: AFA2128 

Anita F. Alberts, Esquire

Attorney I.D. #28086

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 2:02-cv-04421-PBT Document 17-3 Filed 05/13/2004 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000050217
<NAME> INDIANAPOLIS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,766,383
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,171
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         139,137
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       139,081
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,049,772
<COMMON>                                       324,537
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            508,626
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 835,492
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      9,135
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           627,840
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              23,700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 553,605
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,049,772
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      776,427
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            73,335
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     535,777
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     609,112
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        167,315
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               6,864
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 174,179
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        40,777
<NET-INCOME>                                   151,749
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      2,760
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  148,989
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        93,487
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       38,809
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         230,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
No. 55196.

#### Bayer Bros. Leather Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 158089-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of reptile skins the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Fleming-Joffe, Ltd.*v. *United States*(25 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1263), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

LEE ARTERS T/A GREENDALE BUILDERS : CIVIL ACTION – LAW 

 :

 Plaintiff(s), :

 v. : NO. 02-CV-4388 

 :

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO. t/a, : 

ZURICH NORTH AMERICA as successor in : 

Interest to ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : JURY OF TWELVE (12) 

 : DEMANDED

 and :

 :

ASSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA : 

 :

 Defendant(s). : 

ORDER

AND NOW, this day of_________________________, 2003 upon consideration 

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Sur Declaratory Judgment Action and 

Defendants’ response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED. It is 

further ORDERED that the claims asserted against defendant Zurich American Insurance Co. t/a/ 

Zurich North America as successor in interest to Assurance Co. of American are dismissed, with 

prejudice, and that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants as to all claims

asserted against them. 

 

 The Honorable John P. Fullman, U.S.D.J. 

126089-1 

Case 2:02-cv-04388-JF Document 21-3 Filed 10/31/2003 Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

December 11, 1952

No. 56989.

#### Yolande Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 182220-K (New York).

*421Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

At the trial, the collector's amended memorandum in answer to the protest, together with all the official entry papers, was received in evidence. The memorandum stated that the merchandise was exported from Havre, Prance, on June 6, 1948, and that the Federal Reserve bank had certified two rates for the French franc, the “official” rate being $0.004671 and the “free” rate $0.003270. Through inadvertence, the liquidation was made on the basis of the official rate. On the basis of this report, Government counsel conceded that the entries should be reliquidated by converting the French franc at the aforesaid dual rates, computed in the manner outlined in Bureau of Customs Circular Letter No. 2675, dated October 19, 1949, under authority of Abstract 54732. On the record presented and following the cited decision it was held that the currency of the invoice should have been converted in the manner directed by the judgment of this court in said Abstract 54732.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0351 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. ISAAC WILLIAM MACY,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 6 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 28 2022

11/28/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0351
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 241ST DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 8th

day of July, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

JEFFREY DOCK WRIGHT, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00125-CR; Trial Court No. 241-1880-13

Opinion by Bill Bass, Justice.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and briefs filed herein, and the 

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court 

below be in all things affirmed, and that this decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 5

th day of October, 2015.

PAM ESTES, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Brian H. Davis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2006 for IEC Electronics Corp.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information included in this report fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15 d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and,

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated:  November 16, 2006               /s/ Brian H. Davis
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Brian H. Davis
                                       Vice President, Chief Financial
                                       Officer and Controller
No. 49081.

#### Protest 100053-K of Leacock & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find anything sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action. The protest was therefore overruled.