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

San Antonio, Texas

January 30, 2020

No. 04-19-00866-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.D., a Child,

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-PA-02739

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Mom’s brief was due to be filed with this court on January 29, 2020. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a). On the due date, Mom filed a motion for a nine-day extension of time to file 

her brief.

Appellant Mom’s motion is GRANTED. Her brief is due on February 7, 2020. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of January, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### WILLIAM REITER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAX MARX COLOR & CHEMICAL CO., DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

April 13, 1964. Granted.

See same case below: 82 *N. J. Super.*334.

*Messrs.*Lamb, Blake, *Hutchinson & Dunne*and Jír. *H. Qurtis Meanor*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Francis Sorin*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
#### A. L. Thornton v. Margaret H. Parker, as Executrix of the Estate of E. A. Parker, deceased.

181 So. 346.

Opinion Filed April 28, 1938.

Rehearing Denied June 1, 1938.

*Carroll Dunscombe,*for Plaintiff in Error;

*Smith & Kanner,*for Defendant in Error.

Terrell, J.

As first brought, this was an action in assumpsit, the declaration being grounded on the statutory money counts. By leave of the Court, an additional count on a promissory note was filed. Pleas of the Statute of Limitations, payment, and the general issue were entered to the common counts and the plea of *non est factum*and payment to the count on the promissory note.

The cause stood at issue for almost a year, was placed on the calendar for trial, but on the eve of the date set for trial, the defendant without leave of the Court, filed a motion for stay, a motion for compulsory amendment, interrogatories, thirteen additional pleas, and a “demurrer to the action,” all of which were overruled. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, a motion for new trial was overruled and writ of error was prosecuted.

Plaintiff in error has argued twenty assignments of error all predicated on the order overruling the motion for a new trial. We have examined each assignment and collectively *533they charge abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in refusing to permit the additional pleas and other motions offered by defendant on the eve of the trial to prevail. If an error was committed, it was harmless. The assignments were all technical and did not reach the merits of the case.

The judgment below is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
# United States Court of Appeals F orthe F ir st Cir cuit

No. 01-1643 ROBERT HOWARD, Plaintiff, Appellee,

v. SUSAN ANTILLA, Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET
The opinion of this Court issued on June 28, 2002, is amended as follows: On the cover page, replace:

" Robert A. Bertsche , Zick Rubin , Stuart Svonkin and Hill & Barlow were on brief, for amici curiae in support of appellant." with:

" Robert A. Bertsche , Zick Rubin , Stuart Svonkin and Hill & Barlow were on brief, for ABC, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Dow Jones & Co mpa ny, Inc., The National Broadcasting Co., Inc., NYP Holdings, Inc., Time Inc., Ziff Davis Media, Inc., The Association of Americ an Publishers, Inc., and The Newspaper Association of America, Inc., amici curiae."
#### L. L. Morgan, Gabriella Parker, *et al.,*v. B. F. Wells, *et al.,*Trustees.

179 So. 422.

Division A.

Opinion Filed February 15, 1938.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1938.

*Leitner & Leitner,*for Appellants;

*R. E. Brown,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

On motion to dismiss amended bill of complaint the Chancellor entered an order'as follows:

> “The above cause coming on this day pursuant to Notice, upon Motion to Dismiss the Amended bill, and the Court having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds that there is equity in the amended bill, and that it states a cause of action for equitable relief in so far as it undertakes or attempts to inter-plead th.e funds in the hands of the plaintiff, as Trustees, for liquidation of the $1963.39 note principal and interest, but the Court finds that there is no equity in the bill in so far as it attempts to cancel the mortgage or mortgages referred to therein; therefore, it is hereby ordered and decreed that said motion be and the same is overruled, and the defendants are given fifteen (15) days in which to plead as they may be advised.

> *151“It is further hereby ordered and decreed that L. J. Robbins, a practicing attorney before this Court, be and he is hereby appointed as Administrator *Ad Litem*to represent the estate of Phil C. Parker, deceased, in this suit in accordance with the statute in such cases provided.

> “Done and Ordered in Chambers at Arcadia, Florida, this 23rd day of July, A. D. 1937.”

The appeal is from this order.

The amended bill of complaint sought the decree of the Court adjudicating the rights of the defendants in and to certain moneys held in trust for some or all of the parties defendant to the suit and also to cancel a certain mortgage in which the complainants had no interest either as trustees or otherwise.

The amended bill of complaint was not without equity and the allegations are sufficient to warrant the relief sought as to the funds in the hands of complainants under the legal principles stated in Lowry, *et al.,*v. Downing Lfg. Co., *et al.,*73 Fla. 535, 74 Sou. 525:

The order appealed from should be, and is affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, Buford and Chapman, J. J., concur.
BEFORETHE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON D.C.
Petition of: DELTA AIR LINES, INC. OPERATING CERTIFICATE DALA026A Docket FAA-2016-4676 For exemption ofcertain requirements of 14 C.F.R. §121.438(a), §121.438(b) and §121.652(a)

Supplementary Request July 5, 2016
Delta Air Lines, Incorporated, operating certificate DALA026A, received the following request from the FAA:

Reply: "In accordance with Title 14 CFR § 11.81(h), 

### ifDelta Air Lines wantsto exercise the privileges ofan exemption, 

### ifgranted, outside the United States, "the reason why you need to do so" must be included in the petition for exemption. Otherwise, in accordance with§ 11.83, the FAA will limitthe exemption, ifgranted, to use within the United States. The Delta Air Lines petition for exemption from Tlt!e 14CFR §§ 121.438 and 121.652, dated February 29, 2016, did notspecifically request use ofthe petition outside ofthe United States. However, the FAA is aware that Delta Air Lines conducts international operations with the Boeing 767. Therefore, the FAA requests ciarification on whether Delta Air Lines wants to exercise the privileges ofthis exemption, ifgranted, outside the United States. Please submitthe clarlficatlon directlyto the docket ID FAA-2016-4676. 

### IfDelta Air Lines wants to exercise the privileges ofthis exemption, ifgranted, outsidethe United States, please also include the information required by§ 11.Sl(h)."

Thankyou for making this inquiry. Itis Delta's desire to apply the reliefworldwide. The Delta B-767 and B-757 operate to the continents ofAfrica, Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Ifthe reliefwas not granted for operations outside the United States, pilots would not be able to acquire the operating experience in the theaters/operating areasthey normally operate. This would be counter intuitive to the consolidation rules since the pilotwould be prohibited from gaining experience where they normally operate. This would also signlficantly lmpact Delta's ability to effectively schedule crews. The traveling pubic would be impacted by higher operating cost being absorbed through ticket pricing. Our internal analysis did not indicate any safety concern with ourexemption request being applied worldwide. Delta has conducted a review of!CAO ANNEX 1 and ANNEX 6 to determine ifthere are specific !CAO recommendations affecting our request. 

### Itappears the requirements around licensing and aircraftoperator requirements are to be determined by thestates. Delta respectfully requestthe exemption be granted to any area the Delta Operations Specifications allows the B-767 or B-757 to operate.Petition for Exemption
- {FAR) §121.438(a), §121.438(b) and §121.652(a) Delta Air Lines, Inc. Julys, 2016 Page 2

Pl~ase contact me, at (404) 715-1112 ore-mail at chuck.schramek@delta.com, 

### ifyou have and questions or need additional information,

Charles M. Schramek Director
- Quality Assurance, Compliance and Business Support Delta FlightOperations
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 15

- 15112 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:11

- cr - 20698

- RNS

- 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus FRANK J. BALLESTER OS, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (May 18, 2016) Before WILSON , WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Frank J. Ballesteros appeals pro se the d enial of a postconviction motion that the district court treated as a motion to vacate

. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We affirm.
Ballesteros filed a belated motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The United States argued th at Ballesteros’s motion should be construed as a motion to va cate and that the motion was successive, untimely, and procedurally defaulted. See id. The district court denied Ballesteros’s motion “for [the] reasons set forth in [the] Government’s Response.” Ballesteros’s motion was untimely whether it was treate d as a motion for a new trial or a motion to vacate. Ballesteros had to file a motion for a new trial “grounded on newly discovered evidence . . . within 3 years ” after his conviction on April 10, 2012, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 33( b )(1) , b ut he waited until August 28, 2015, more than four months after the deadline expired, to file his motion. A nd if we construe his filing as a motion to vacate, Ballesteros failed to file his motion within one year after “the date on which the judgment of conviction became final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(1)

. We deem abandoned any challenge that Ballesteros could have made to the disposition of his motion. “ While we read briefs filed by pro se litigants liberally, issues not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned .” Timson v. Sampson , 518 F. 3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008)

. Ballesteros argues that his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are meritorious, but he fails to challenge

Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 2 of 33 the decisions to construe his motion as a motion to vacate or to deny his motion as untimely and procedurally barre d.
W e AFFIRM the denial of Ballesteros’s motion

. Case: 15-15112 Date Filed: 05/18/2016 Page: 3 of 3
BLOCK MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC.
                    ASSET BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1999-2

                  MASTER SERVICER ANNUAL OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

                                 March 30, 2000


     Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8.16 of the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement dated as of October 1, 1999, by and between BLOCK MORTGAGE FINANCE,
INC., as Depositor, COMPANION MORTGAGE CORPORATION, as Seller, BLOCK FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, as Master Servicer, and BANK ONE, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee
(the "PSA"), I, Bret G. Wilson, Vice President of the Master Servicer, hereby
certify as follows:

     (i) a review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of performance under the PSA has been made under my
supervision;

     (ii) to the best of my individual knowledge based on such review, the
Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the PSA for such
year; and

     (iii)the Master Servicer's short-term commercial paper is rated is A1 by
Standard & Poor's and P-1 by Moody's.

Capitalized  terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
set forth in the PSA.


                               BLOCK FINANCIAL CORPORATION


                               By: /s/ Bret G. Wilson
                                   -------------------------
                                   Bret G. Wilson, Vice President
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 16-615V Filed: July 20, 2016

UNPUBLISHED

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * GILMORE WRIGHT, II, *

* Petitioner, * Ruling on Entitlement; Concession; v. * Influenza (“ Flu”); Shoulder Injury

* Related to Vaccine Administration SECRETARY OF HEALTH * (“SIRVA”); Special Processing Unit AND HUMAN SERVICES, * (“SPU”)

* Respondent. *

*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul Brazil, Muller Brazil, LLP , Dresher, PA, for petitioner. Voris Johnson, U.S. Department of Ju stice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT 1

Dorsey , Chief Special Master:

On May 25, 2016, petitioner filed a petit ion for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

, 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that he suffered inju ries including left rota tor cuff syndrome as a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine admin istered in his left deltoid on November 7, 2014. Petition at 1. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On July 18, 2016, respondent filed her Rule 4(c) report in which she concedes that petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, respondent agr ees that petitioner’s alleged in jury is consistent with a shoulder injury related to va ccine administration (“SIRVA”). Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under

the Vaccine Act. Id.

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reaso ned explanation for the action in this case, the undersigned intends to post it on the United States Cour t of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with

the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other inform ation, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, t he undersigned agrees that the identified material fits within this definition, the undersigned will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Ac t will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).2 In view of respondent’s concession and the evidence before me, the undersigned finds that petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Nora Beth Dorsey Nora Beth Dorsey Chief Special Master
Search Help More Search Options

Search EERE Information Center 

## Distribution Transformers NOPR Technical Support Document This Technical Support Document (TSD) provides the technical analyses and results in support of the information presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) for distribution transformers. The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Acrobat Reader

.

Title Page ( PDF 16 KB ) Table of Contents ( PDF 290 KB ) List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ( PDF 64 KB ) Chapters Chapter 1. Introduction ( PDF 77 KB ) Chapter 2. Analytical Framework ( PDF 180 KB ) Chapter 3. Market and Technology Assessment ( PDF 400 KB ) Chapter 4. Screening Analysis ( PDF 129 KB ) Chapter 5. Engineering Analysis ( PDF 3.9 MB ) Chapter 6. Energy Use and End

- Use Load

Characterization ( PDF 215 KB ) Chapter 7. Markups for Equipment Price

Determination ( PDF 76 KB ) Chapter 8. Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Analyses ( PDF 672 KB ) Chapter 9. Shipments Analysis ( PDF 182 KB ) Chapter 10. National Impact Analysis ( PDF 248 KB ) Chapter 11. Life

- Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis ( PDF 137 KB ) Chapter 12. Manufacturer Impact Analysis ( PDF 479 KB ) Chapter Utility Impact Analysis ( PDF 484 KB )13. Chapter 14. Net National Employment Impact ( PDF 78 KB ) Reports Environmental Assessment ( PDF 182 KB )

Regulatory Impact Analysis ( PDF 171 KB ) Appendices Appendix 3A Core Steel Market Analysis ( PDF 294 KB ) Appendix 5A Supplementary Engineering Analysis

Results ( PDF 4.5 MB ) Appendix 5B Scaling Relationships in Transformer

Manufacturing ( PDF 317 KB ) Appendix 5C Q1 2005 Material Pricing Analysis ( PDF 5.4 MB ) Appendix 8A Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period

Results ( PDF 864 KB ) Appendix 8B Uncertainty and Variability ( PDF 51 KB ) Appendix 8C Sample Utilities ( PDF 58 KB ) Appendix 8D Life

- Cycle Cost Sensitivity Results ( PDF 1.8 MB ) Appendix 8E Average Transformer Design

Properties from Life

- Cycle Cost Model ( PDF 273 KB )
Appendix 10A User Instructions for Shipments and

National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet Model ( PDF 59 KB )
Appendix 10B National Energy Savings and Net

National Present Value Results ( PDF 580 KB ) Appendix 11A Life

- Cycle Cost Subgroup Results ( PDF 777 KB ) Appendix 12A Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Interview Guides: Liquid

- Immersed and Medium

- Voltage, Dry

- Type ( PDF 234 KB )
Appendix 12B Manufacturer Impact Analysis Small

Business Interview Guide ( PDF 87 KB ) Appendix 12C Government Regulatory Impact

Model (GRIM) Supporting Documentation ( PDF 164 KB )
Appendix 13A NEMS

- BT Extension Modeling

Beyond 2025 ( PDF 69 KB )

Printable VersionWebmaster | Security & Privacy | Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home U.S. Department of Energy Content Last Updated: 08/08/2006
No. 46781.

#### Protests 53715-K, etc., of Barker Bros. Silver Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

When the cases were called for trial they were submitted without the introduction of evidence in support of the claims made. There being nothing in the record to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s action, the protests were overruled.
No. 50126.

#### Protests 113007-K, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the opera glasses are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Woolworth*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 1, C. D. 74). In accordance therewith they were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 228 (b) as claimed.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Interchange Corporation;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly 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 small business issuer 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 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the small business issuer, is made known to
us by others within the small business issuer, particularly during the period in
which this quarterly report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer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; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of small business issuers board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely
to adversely affect the small business issuers ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.
 Date: August 12, 2005
    
    /s/ Douglas S. NormanDouglas S. NormanChief Financial Officer and Secretary(Principal Financial Officer)