alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 23, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00878-CR

MARIO LOPEZ JUCUP, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-55339-R

ORDER

The Court DENIES as moot appellant’s July 21, 2014 request for an extension of time to 

file his pro se response to the Anders brief filed by counsel. On July 14, 2014, the Court ordered 

counsel to provide appellant a copy of the record and gave appellant until October 1, 2014 to file 

his pro se response. 

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Mark Stoltz, Presiding Judge, 265th Judicial District Court; Mary Snider, official 

court reporter, 265th Judicial District Court; Gary Fitzsimmons, Dallas County District Clerk; 

April Smith; and Michael Casillas.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first-class mail, to Mario Jucup, 

TDCJ No. 1870734, Holliday Unit, 295 I.H. 45 North, Huntsville, Texas 77320-8443.

/s/ DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
No. 46118.

#### Protest 979822-G of N. Y. Umbrella Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the record presented the protest was dismissed.
No. 52028.

#### J. Sammes *v.*United States,

protest 96246-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the cheese the subject of S. *A. Haram*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 37, C. D. 1016), the claim at 5 cents per pound, but not less than 20 percent ad valorem, under paragraph 710, as modified by the trade agreement with Finland (T. D. 48554), was sustained. It was further stipulated that certain items of the merchandise are the same as the cheese involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), Abstract 42146, and Abstract 48269. As to this merchandise it was held that an allowance of 2J4 percent should have been made in the weight of the cheese by the collector in computing the duty thereon to compensate for the weight of the inedible coverings on the outside of the cheese.
EXHIBIT 31.1
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Charles E. Drimal, Jr., certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PrimeEnergy Corporation;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this annual report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this annual report;  4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have:
 (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filling date of this annual report(the “Evaluation Date”); and  (c)  Presented in this annual report our conclusion about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
 5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controlswhich could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors and materialweaknesses in internal controls; and  (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
 6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual reportwhether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recentevaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.        March 31, 2005 /s/ Charles E. Drimal Jr.          Charles E. Drimal Jr     Chief Executive Officer     PrimeEnergy Management Corporation     Managing General Partner
Before the Third Division,

April 30, 1948

No. 52300.

protests 987575-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### M. Furuya Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of seaweeds, manufactured, similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303) the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 was sustained.
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Keith M. Cassells,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

D. Mehta, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoPlaintiff moves to strike defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s

opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss upon the ground the

reply asserts an “immaterial and an insufficient defense” in

violation of Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 12(f) applies to pleadings and a reply to a party’s

opposition to a motion is not a pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a),

(b).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s January 25, 2005, and February 25,

2005, motions are denied.

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 27 Filed 07/13/05 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

2

So ordered.

Dated: July 12, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 27 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On February 18, 2005, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. Process directed to defendant Bulanon was returned unserved because

“per CDC personnel services section, no records found. Returned unexecuted.” Plaintiff must

provide additional information to serve this defendant. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such

information through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et

seq., or other means available to plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or

unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention.

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form,

along with an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed September 2, 2004;

2. Within sixty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and

submit the attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the following

documents:

a. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Bulanon; 

b. Two copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed September 2,

2004; and

c. One completed summons form (if not previously provided) 

or show good cause why he cannot provide such information.

DATED: 4/22/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:bb

high0887.8e

 

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. HIGHTOWER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0887 GEB GGH P

vs.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s

order filed :

 One completed summons form

 One completed USM-285 form

 Two copies of the September 2, 2004 

 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-00887-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 04/22/05 Page 3 of 3
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0159 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0159

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 April 2007 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2004/585/EC establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2006)0732 - C6-0051/2007 - 2006/0240(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 074 E , 20/03/2008 P. 0742 - 0742 *

P6_TA(2007)0159

Common Fisheries Policy (Regional Advisory Councils) *

European Parliament legislative resolution of 26 April 2007 on the proposal for a Council decision amending Decision 2004/585/EC establishing Regional Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2006)0732 — C6-0051/2007 — 2006/0240(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2006)0732) [1],

- having regard to Article 37 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0051/2007),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Fisheries (A6-0078/2007);

1. Approves the Commission proposal;

2. Recognises that the current proposal relates only to the financial aspects of Regional Advisory Councils and that other aspects remain to be resolved at the time of the forthcoming review, in particular those relating to their number and composition;

3. Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

4. Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Before the First Division,

September 20, 1949

No. 53554.

protests 971934-G, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Bert Friedberg & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.

Cole, J., dissented on jurisdictional grounds, citing *Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 158, C. D. 1175), *Fuchs Shoe Corp.*v. *United States*(id. 338, Abstract 53250), and *W. R. Zanes & Co.*v. *United States*(id. 339, Abstract 53251).
**EXHIBIT 32.1**
**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION**
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc.(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 (theReport), I, Gail P. Seneca, Chairman of the Board of Directors and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that tothe best of my knowledge:
1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
Date: May 7, 2004     By: /s/ GAIL P. SENECA       Gail P. Seneca   Chief Executive Officer   (Principal Executive Officer)  
     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 hasbeen provided to Luminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and will be retained byLuminent Mortgage Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.
RNGR.net is sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and Southern Regional Extension Forestry and is a colloborative effort between these two agencies.

Skip to content. |  Skip to navigation

Reforestation, Nurseries,& Genetic Resources

          -  Home
          -  Directory & Marketplace
          -  Publications
          -  Resources
          -  Seed Lab
          -  Tribal
          -  Tropical
          -  About

Home→Publications→National Nursery Proceedings

              -            Tree Planters' Notes         
              -            Forest Nursery Notes         
              -            National Nursery Proceedings         
              -            Nursery Manuals         
              -            Seed Manuals         
              -            Native Plants         
              -            Publicaciones en Español         
              -            Pest Management         
              -            Seedling Quality         
              -            Tree Improvement and Genetics         
              -            Southern Pines         
              -            Reforestation         
              -            Hardwoods         
              -            Climate Change / Assisted Migration         

            - Info

#       National Nursery Proceedings    

**The following events occurred in 2018:**

-  Joint Annual Meeting of the Southern Forest Nursery Association and the Northeast Forest and Conservation Nursery Association 
-  Pensacola, FL  July 17, 2018 - July 19, 2018 
-  Joint Annual Meeting of the Western Forest and Conservation Nursery Association and the Intermountain Container Seedling Growers Association 
-  Coeur d’Alene, ID  October 25, 2018 - October 26, 2018 

### Select Another Year

Select a year from the list below to view all events that occurred during that year.

RNGR.net is sponsored by the USDA Forest Service and Southern Regional Extension Forestry and is a colloborative effort between these two agencies.

##### Personal tools

        -  Admin Log in 
        -
No. 47375.

#### Protests 47222-K, etc., of Norman G. Jensen (Pembina).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the lumber in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Seaboard Lumber Sales Co. v. United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 161, C. D. 391). In accordance therewith it was held that the tax imposed should have been assessed on the basis of the condition in which imported, and that no addition should have been made for the planing, tonguing, and grooving. Protests sustained to this extent.
No. 61814.

#### International Expediters, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 311534-K (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

An examination of the official papers showing that the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, the protest was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 614, Tariff Act of 1930.
# C_2008044EN.01003301.xml

| 16.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/33

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on non-automatic weighing instruments’ (Codified version)

COM(2007) 446 final — 2007/0164 (COD)

(2008/C 44/07)

On 5 September 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 439th plenary session of 24 and 25 October 2007 (meeting of 24 October), by 153 votes in favour with 2 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 24 October 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
No. 54658.

#### J. & H. Baer, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 133925-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of synthetic stones the same in all material respects as those the subject of *S. Nathan & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(37 C. C. P. A. 99, C. A. D. 426), the claim at 10 percent under paragraph 1528 was sustained.
No. 51710.

#### Protests 847079-G, etc., of Wing Woh Chong Hing Kee Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of kumquats similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342). In accordance therewith the claim at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 9473)

#### Finwood Industries, Inc. Samuel Shapiro & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States

Entry No. 8876, etc.

(Decided June 23, 1959)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate *462to certain plywood exported from Finland in the years 1955 and 1956, and entered at the port of Baltimore, Md.

In a written stipulation of submission, the parties have limited the cases to the items of merchandise that were “advanced in value and appraised on the basis of the home market value.” The agreed facts, upon which the case is before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the said merchandise is foreign value, as defined in section 402(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is the appraised unit values, less 4 per centum, packed, and I so hold.

These appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned as to the items of merchandise which were appraised “on the basis of the entered invoice unit values” are dismissed as to that merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit






EXHIBIT 10.5

[Date]
TO:    [Name of Individual]
		
	RE:
	Amendment to Outstanding Restricted Stock and Long Term Performance Unit (“LTPU”) Award Agreements


You are receiving this notice because you are the holder of Restricted Stock Awards and/or LTPU Awards granted under the Tenneco Inc. 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “LTIP”).  Recently, there were some changes in the accounting rules applicable to equity-based compensation that permitted us to amend the LTIP and outstanding awards to make the tax withholding provisions more flexible for participants. 


Before the changes in the rules, the LTIP and the applicable award agreements provided that, except as provided by the committee that administers the LTIP (the “Committee”), participants could elect to satisfy required tax withholding through the surrender of previously-owned shares or through the surrender of shares to which the participant was otherwise entitled pursuant to the award (sometimes called “net” share withholding).  For accounting reasons, however, the LTIP (and award agreements) provided that any share withholding was limited to withholding at the minimum statutory withholding rate.  Due to the changes in the accounting rules, participants can now be permitted to elect share withholding up to the maximum individual tax rate for the employee’s tax jurisdiction.  


Both the LTIP and outstanding Restricted Stock Awards and LTPU Awards were amended to permit withholding in accordance with the new accounting rules.  In particular, your applicable award agreements have been amended to provide that, except as provided by the Committee, (i) the amount withheld in the form of shares of Tenneco stock may not exceed the minimum statutory withholding obligation (unless you elect otherwise), (ii) you will not be permitted to elect less than the minimum statutory withholding obligation, and (iii) you will be permitted to elect to have an amount withheld in the form of Tenneco stock that does not exceed your maximum individual tax rate.  


This notice documents the amendment to your applicable award agreements.  You will not be receiving new award agreements.  Therefore, you should keep a copy of this notice with the applicable award agreements for your records. 


If you have any questions, please contact ____________________.
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-147-CV

BRYAN ADLER APPELLANT

V.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY APPELLEE 

AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES

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

FROM THE 158TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Bryan Adler’s notice of appeal indicates that he is attempting

to appeal the custody and child support modifications that the trial court

allegedly made on March 25, 2008. No order or judgment dated March 25,

2008 has been provided to us, and our review of the trial court’s docket
2

currently indicates that no order or judgment was entered on or about March

25, 2008.

On April 11, 2008, we notified the parties that we were concerned that

this court may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it appeared that

there was no final or appealable order or judgment. We indicated that this case

would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction if the parties did not show grounds

for continuing the appeal by April 21, 2008.

By memo dated April 18, 2008, Adler informed us that he was unclear

as to what order the trial court entered on March 25, 2008.

Accordingly, because the trial court has entered neither a final judgment

nor an appealable interlocutory order, we must dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a) (Vernon Supp.

2007) (listing appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39

S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that an appeal may be

taken only from a final judgment); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: May 8, 2008