alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Cause number: 01

- 1 9

- 0 0 059

- C V

Style: Rich Robins v. Austen Perry Clinkenbeard and Jonathon G.

Clinkenbeard aka “Jon Clinkenbeard”

Date motion filed * : June 7

, 201 9

Type of motion: Agreed Motion to (Slightly) Amend His Brief

Party filing motion: Pro se Appellant Rich Robins

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Amended Brief

Is appeal accelerated? Yes

.

Ordered that motion i s:  Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

A ppellant ’s motion is granted and his amended brief , to fix the index of authorities and

record references but with no substantive changes, is ordered to be filed within 5 days o f

the date of this Order

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.7. Appellee’s brief, if any, shall be due

within 2 0 days of the filing of the amended brief

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b), (d)

.

________

Judge’ s signature:

___

/s/ Evely n V. Keyes

_____  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: __ June 18, 2019

______
EXHIBIT 10.12
  1.
    
    Each director shall receive an aggregate annual cash stipend of $15,000 to be paid in
quarterly installments.2.
    
    Each director shall receive $2,000 cash for each face-to-face meeting of the Board
attended.3.
    
    Each director shall receive $1,500 cash for each telephonic meeting of the Board
attended.4.
    
    Each board committee member shall receive $500 cash for each board committee meeting
attended in conjunction with a face-to-face board meeting.5.
    
    Each board member shall receive $1,500 cash for each board committee meeting attended,
whether stand alone, telephonic or face-to-face, except as noted in paragraph (4) above.6.
    
    The audit committee chairman shall receive an additional aggregate cash stipend of
$50,000 to be paid in quarterly installments and an additional 1,000 shares of restricted
stock.7.
    
    The chairman of each other committee shall receive an additional aggregate cash stipend
of $3,000 to be paid in quarterly installments.8.
    
    Each director shall receive annually an aggregate of $60,000 in shares of immediately
vested common stock with the number of shares to be issued being determined by the closing
price on the date of the 2008 annual meeting.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA 21-0418

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: ) 

) ORDER GRANTING 

JENNIFER L. RUSSUM, ) UNCONTESTED MOTION 

) TO EXTEND MEDIATION 

Petitioner and Appellant, ) DEADLINE

)

and ) 

)

MATTHEW S. WENDT, )

)

Respondent and Appellee. ) 

_______________________________)

Appellant, Jennifer L. Russum, has moved this Court for a 30-day extension, 

from November 8, 2021, up to and including December 8, 2021, in which to 

conduct the mediation in this matter. Appellee does not oppose the motion.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall have up to and including

December 8, 2021, to conduct mediation in this matter.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 4 2021

11/04/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0418
EXHIBIT 35.1








ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC








The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of February 1, 2016 (the "Sale and Servicing Agreement") among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2016-1, as Issuer (the "Issuer"), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, and CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer (the "Servicer"), does hereby certify that:





|   |                                                                                                              
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.




|   |                                                                                      
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officer's Certificate.




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on February 3, 2016 and ending on February 29, 2016 and of the Servicer's performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made under my supervision.  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.







Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing Agreement.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officer's Certificate this 20th day of May, 2016.





CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC





/s/ Andrew J. McMonigle


Andrew J. McMonigle


Vice President, Treasurer and Assistant Secretary
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

______________________________ ALL ALI BIN ALI AHMED, : et al., : : Petitioners, : : v. : Civil Action No. 05-1678 (GK) : BARACK H. OBAMA, et al., : : Respondents. : ______________________________: ORDER A Status Conference was held in this case on February 26, 2009, which was closed to the public due to discussion of classified information. Upon consideration of the representations of the parties, and the entire record herein, it is hereby ORDER ED , that the Government shall respond to Petitioner’s Request for Adm i s s ions by March 9, 2009 . If the Government is unable to respond by that date, it shall file a Praecipe explaining why and include a reliable estimation of when the Government will be able to respond; and it is further ORDERED , that March 10, 2009 , is the final deadline for the Government to produce exculpatory evidence -- including credibility assessments -- related to the four individuals whose statements the Government prin c i p ally relies on to establish its case for detention; and it is further ORDERED , that the Government shall submit a Praecipe on March 10, 2009 , estimating how long it will take to produce such evidence-2-

for any remaining individuals that the Government relies on to establish its case for detention.

/ s / February 26, 2009 Gladys Kessler United States District Judge Copies to: Attorneys of Record via ECF
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andManagement of

Prudential Asset Resources,Inc.:

 

We have examined management'sassertion, included in the accompanying Certification Regarding Compliance withApplicable Servicing Criteria, that Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the"Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for theCommercial Mortgage-Backed Security Transactions - RegAB Portfolio (the"Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and for the year then ended,excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(i) (C) & (D),1122(d)(3)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which theCompany has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by itwith respect to the Platform. Exhibit C to management's assertion identifiesthe individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by managementas constituting the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company'scompliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express anopinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backedtransactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedureswere limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed bythe Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were notdesigned to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurredprior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances oramounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by thisreport. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on theCompany's compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management'sassertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for the Platformis fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

February 22, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,300 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10017*

*T: (646) 471 3000, F: (646)471 8320, www.pwc.com/us*
#### Mary NICHOLS *v.*Dewey STILES, DIRECTOR OF LABOR

E 84-7

668 S.W.2d 554

Court of Appeals of Arkansas Division I

Opinion delivered May 9, 1984

Appellant, *pro se.*

*Alinda*Andrews, for appellee.

Donald L. Corbin, Judge.

Appellant, Mary Nichols, appeals a decision of the Board of Review affirming the action of the Appeal Tribunal which affirmed an Agency determination denying benefits and reducing her base period wages pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(a) and § 81-1104(h) (Supp. 1985). This action was predicated on the basis that appellant’s appeal to the Appeal Tribunal was untimely filed pursuant to the authority of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1107(d)(2) (Supp. 1983). We affirm.

The record reflects that appellant quit her employment with J.J.’s Truck Stop on July 15, 1983, in order to get married and move with her spouse to New Mexico. The notice of the Agency determination was mailed on Sep*213tember 12, 1983, and appellant filed her appeal on October 17,1983. A telephone hearing was held on November 9,1983, before the Appeal Tribunal. Pursuant to *Paulino*v. *Daniels,*269 Ark. 676, 599 S.W.2d 760 (Ark. App. 1980), appellant was afforded this opportunity to establish why the late filing was the result of circumstances beyond her control. Appellant testified that after receiving the Agency determination, she stepped up her search for work. She stated that her appeal was untimely because of this concentrated effort to secure employment. This clearly is not an acceptable defense.

We note that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(a) was amended by Act 482 of 1983 to disallow benefits to a claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her last work to. accompany a spouse to a new place of residence unless he or she has done so prior to July 1,1983. Thus, it would appear that appellant would have been disqualified under this amended Act because she left her employment on July 15, 1983.

Affirmed.

Cooper and Cracraft, JJ., agree.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000099102
<NAME> TRANS INDUSTRIES INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           6,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,153,713
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 14,268,991
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,020,050
<PP&E>                                      18,645,356
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,067,881
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,413,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,511,035
<BONDS>                                      3,804,986
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       313,974
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,167,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,413,532
<SALES>                                     11,529,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            11,537,425
<CGS>                                        8,504,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,842,950
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             310,002
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (119,562)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (115,562)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (115,562)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.04)


</TABLE>
cm 1 c:lpel_datalspectralethox 4180 .sp 84.1 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 %T 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0.2 4000.0 3000 2000 1500 1000 450.0
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10
- 12
- 00403
- CR IN RE TREVER ROBERTS ON
Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Trever Robertson has filed what he titled “Motion for Leave to file Petition for Writ of Mandamus” although portions of his docum ent could also be a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. A motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus is required when relief is sought from the Court of Criminal Appeals. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 72.1. But the requirement for leave to file at the court of appeals level was eliminated in 1997. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52, Notes and Comments. Thus, under the applicable rules, if mandamus relief is sought from an intermediate court of appeals, such as the Tenth Court of Appeals, a motion for leave to file the petition is unnecessary. Accordingly, Robertson’s
motion for leave is dismissed as moot.In re Robertson Page 2

As a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, there is simply inadequate information supplied to even begin to address the legal merits of it. It appears, based upon the puni shment referenced in the motion, Robertson’s complaint relates to a motion for new trial from the judgment in trial court number 02

- 089

- CR which was the subject of an appeal docketed in this Court and disposed of as 10

- 02

- 00283

- CR. But Robertson
does not supply any necessary information, such as the date the sentence was imposed, that would help us determine whether he is entitled to any relief. He simply asserts that he filed a motion for new trial on September 6, 2012 that has not been ruled upon by the trial court. We note that if a timely filed motion for new trial, and from what is before us this motion for new trial does not appear to be timely filed, is not ruled on by the trial court, the motion is deemed denied 75 days after the sentence is impos ed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 21.8. That deemed denial, just like a written trial court order denying the motion for new trial, could then be appealed, but only if the motion for new trial was timely filed (within 30 days after the sentence is imposed). T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 21.4(a); 26.2(a)(2). Thus, Robertson would have had an adequate legal remedy by appeal that he appears to have lost by his delay in the filing of the motion for new trial. It therefore appears that the trial court has no jurisdiction to rule on th e untimely filed motion for
new trial. See Drew v. State , 743 S.W.2d 207, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Accordingly, to
the extent that the document Robertson has filed is a Petition for Writ of Mandamus toIn re Robertson Page 3

compel the trial court to do that which the trial court has no jurisdiction to do, it is
denied. There are other procedural problems with Robertson’s document including, but not limited to, that it was not served on the trial court judge. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.2; 9.5.
However , we use Rule 2 to look be yond the procedural problems and reach a more timely disposition. T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismissed as moot Petition denied Opinion delivered and filed November 15, 2012 Do not publish [OT06]
(Reap. Dec. 8283)

#### United States *v.*D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc.

Entry No. 783610.

(Decided January 28, 1954)

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision on an agreed statement of fact on the basis of which I find the proper value was the unit invoice price, plus items *583marked in red ink X in a circle on the invoice sheet identified by an XX in a circle.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# Official Journal L 293/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 293 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6010 November 2017 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 293

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6010 November 2017

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2017/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 on European venture capital funds and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2017/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2017 amending Regulation (EU) No 345/2013 on European venture capital funds and Regulation (EU) No 346/2013 on European social entrepreneurship funds (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00191-CV

Austin Metal Productions Company, Inc., a/k/a Austin Material Handling, Co., Appellant

v.

ASI Storage Solutions, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-11-001064, HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant filed a fifth motion to extend time to file its brief, explaining that the

parties were in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement. Appellant asked us to extend time

to file its brief for seventy days, until June 3, 2013. We dismiss the motion to extend time to file

appellant’s brief and instead abate the appeal while the parties conclude their settlement negotiations.

Appellant is ordered to file either a report explaining the status of the negotiations and the appeal

or a motion to dismiss the appeal no later than June 3, 2013.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Abated

Filed: April 3, 2013
December 2, 1971

No. 71-46

#### Johnnie R. Armes, Formerly PVT, U. S. Army v United States.

On consideration of the “Amened (sic) Motion to Dismiss and Vacate Sentence” and of the “Motion for Vacation of Sentence” filed in the above-entitled action, it appearing that petitioner has set forth no facts upon which the relief sought is based, it is, by the Court, this 2d day of December 1971,

ORDERED:

That said motions be, and the same are hereby, dismissed.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JOHN A. TOTH,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-1788

[August 17, 2017]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Laura Sellers Johnson, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 2012-CF-011260-A.

John A. Toth, Crawfordville, pro se.

No brief filed for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Toreador Resources Corporation;(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 operation and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;(4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     (5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
   Date: August 9, 2006/s/ Douglas W. WeirDouglas W. WeirSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
# C_2008275EN.01001901.xml

| 30.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 275/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 275/19

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AD/139/08

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2008/C 275/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising open competition EPSO/AD/139/08 for the recruitment of Danish-language lawyer-linguists (AD 7).

The competition notice is published in Official Journal C 275 A of 30.10.2008 in Danish only.

Further details can be found on the EPSO website: http://europa.eu/epso

---