alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00251-CR

No. 10-16-00252-CR

JOHNNY CANDIDO MANSOLO,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2015-447-C1 & 2015-49-C1

ORDER

Johnny Candido Mansolo’s convictions were affirmed by this Court on December 

14, 2014. See Mansolo v. State, Nos. 10-16-00251-CR & 10-16-00252-CR, 2016 Tex. App. 

Lexis 13224 (Tex. App.—Waco Dec. 14, 2016, no pet. h.) (publish). After the convictions 

were affirmed and Mansolo’s appointed attorney was released from representing him 

pursuant to Anders procedures, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. 
Mansolo v. State Page 2

Ed. 2d 493 (1967), Mansolo filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for 

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc requesting an additional 30 days to file a motion for 

rehearing and rehearing en banc in each appeal. We granted Mansolo’s motion, and his 

motion for rehearing was due on February 10, 2017.

On February 13, 2017, we received another motion for extension of time from 

Mansolo. Although the motion is styled, “In the Tenth Court of Appeals” and was 

specifically mailed to this Court, it is entitled, “Second Motion for Extension of Time to 

File Petition for Discretionary Review” and is addressed to “The Honorable Judges of the 

Court of Criminal Appeals.” We have determined that Mansolo has not previously filed 

a motion for extension of time to file a petition for discretionary review with the Court of 

Criminal Appeals. Further, in the motion he states his “petition for discretionary review” 

is due February 10, 2017, the date his motion for rehearing was due. Thus, we consider 

this motion to be a second motion for extension of time to file his motion for rehearing.

In his first motion, Mansolo asked for an extension of 30 days to file his motion for 

rehearing. He was given over 30 days from the date it was otherwise due. He now 

requests an additional 60 days alleging he was not informed of our decision in his case 

until February 3, 2017 and was trying to “gain legal representation in this matter.” We 

note that Mansolo knew about our decision in his case well before February 3, 2017. 

Aside from the fact that his first motion was filed on December 30, 2016, and was signed 
Mansolo v. State Page 3

by Mansolo, he also asserted in that motion that he needed the extension because he was 

only informed of our decision on December 20, 2016. 

Mansolo has had ample time to file a motion for rehearing in each of his appeals. 

His second motion, and the blatant misrepresentations therein, shows to us that he is not 

serious in his attempts to file a motion for rehearing. We do not tolerate the type of game 

Mansolo is playing.

Accordingly, Mansolo’s “Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for 

Discretionary Review,” which we are treating as a second motion for extension of time to 

file a motion for rehearing, is denied. 

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed March 8, 2017
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  November 3, 2010 | /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. EPERJESY                                           |
|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                              | Christopher J. Eperjesy                                               |
|                              | Vice President – Finance, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

----
No. 47542.

#### Protests 974259-G, etc., of Sprouse-Reitz Co. (Los Angeles, etc.)

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The sample consists of a metal cylindrical cigarette or cigar lighter, approximately 2)4 inches in length, knd has a small metal ring about H inch in diameter fitted at the bottom. The only witness for the plaintiff, an employee of the corporation, identified the sample but had no knowledge concerning its use. He testified that he had not used it himself nor had he seen it used. It was therefore found that the claim under paragraph 1552 was not established. The claim under paragraph 1527, as amended by the French Trade Agreement (T. D. 48316), was held wholly untenable, as the only provision at 60 percent under paragraph 1527, as modified by the said trade agreement, is one relating to articles "Composed wholly or in chief value of gold or platinum, or of which the metal part is wholly or in chief value of gold or platinum.” Nothing was found in the record to show that these lighters are composed of those precious metals and a casual examination indicated that such was not the case. The protests were therefore overruled and the action of the collector affirmed.
|   | EXHIBIT      31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |                                       |                               |
|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                         | UNITED      MORTGAGE TRUST                 |
|                    |                                  |                          |
| Date: May      15, 2008 | By                               | /s/ Christine      A. Griffin |
|                         | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
No. 55451.

#### Lun Fat Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 149538-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Exhibit
10.30


 


ROSENTHAL
& ROSENTHAL, INC.


1370
Broadway


New
York, NY 10018


 


March
30, 2022


 


John
J. Bello


Nancy
E. Bello


The
John and Nancy Bello Revocable Living Trust


4063
N 97th Street


Scottsdale,
AZ 85262


 


	RE:	A/C#1134-4851
    (the “Collateral Account”)


 


Dear
Mr. and Mrs. Bello:


 


Reference
is made to the Amended and Restated Pledge Agreement executed by The John and Nancy Bello Revocable Living Trust and Rosenthal &
Rosenthal, Inc. dated November 24, 2021, with respect to the present and future obligations of Reed’s Inc. to us (the “Pledge
Agreement”).


 


This
will confirm that Rosenthal & Rosenthal, Inc. has received payment on account in the amount of $2,500,000 and that pursuant to the
October 4, 2018 Financing Agreement, as amended (“Financing Agreement”) (1) such sum has been applied to retire the Permitted
Overadvance in Section 2.1(y) of the Financing Agreement, (2) the guaranty of John J. Bello dated November 24, 2021 is hereby
discharged, and (3) the securities identified on Schedule “A” are hereby released from the security interest set forth in
the Pledge Agreement. In all other respects the Financing Agreement, Loan Documents, Pledge Agreement and other Collateral Documents
defined in the Financing Agreement remain in full force and effect.


 


	 	Very
    truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	ROSENTHAL
    & ROSENTHAL, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Ian Brown
	 	 	Ian
    Brown
	 	 	Vice
    President


 


[Signatures
continued on following page]


 




    	 



     


    

 


CONSENTED
AND ACKNOWLEDGED:


 


BORROWER:


 


REEDS’S
INC.


 


	By:
    	/s/
    Norman E. Snyder, Jr.	 	Dated:
    	March
    17, 2022
	 	Norman
    E. Snyder, Jr., CEO	 	 	 


 


	By:		 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	 	Thomas
    J. Spisak, CFO and Secretary	 	 	 


 


GUARANTOR:


 


	 	 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	JOHN
    J. BELLO	 	 	 


 


PLEDGOR:


 


THE
JOHN AND NANCY BELLO REVOCABLE


LIVING
TRUST, under agreement dated December 3, 2012


 


	By:	/s/
    John J. Bello	 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	 	John
    J. Bello, Trustee	 	 	 






 


	By:	/s/
    Nancy E. Bello	 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	 	Nancy
    E. Bello, Trustee	 	 	 






 


Consent:


 


	/s/
    John J. Bello	 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	John
    J. Bello, Trustor and Beneficiary 	 	 	 






 


	/s/
    Nancy E. Bello	 	Dated:	March
    17, 2022
	Nancy
    E. Bello, Trustor and Beneficiary
No. 51163.

#### Protest 53439-K of B. Forman Co. (Rochester).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on the entry. The protest was sustained to this extent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                     517,398
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                   131,344
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                        210,647
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                      13,834
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                911,858
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                1,785,081
<COMMON>                                      282,983
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                     150
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           182,204
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                465,337
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                          522,165
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                            0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                     14,121
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                 859
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                     0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                   16,032
<LEASES-CURRENT>                              383
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                766,184
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                 1,785,081
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                     180,977
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                          13,206
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    143,115
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                    156,321
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                       24,656
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            1,943
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                26,599
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      9,734
<NET-INCOME>                                  16,865
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                   0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                 16,865
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      10,130
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                     31,578
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                        26,074
<EPS-BASIC>                                   1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 1.20



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date: February 5, 2010
    By:
    /s/  RONALD L. SMITHRonald L. SmithVice President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 71

Designating the week beginning March 13, 2005 as ‘‘National Safe Place 

Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 3, 2005

Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. 

COCHRAN, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. HATCH, Mr. KOHL, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. INHOFE, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. INOUYE, Mrs. 

LINCOLN, Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

LUGAR, and Mr. DODD) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

MARCH 10, 2005

Considered, amended, and agreed to 

RESOLUTION

Designating the week beginning March 13, 2005 as 

‘‘National Safe Place Week’’.

Whereas today’s youth are vital to the preservation of our 

country and will be the future bearers of the bright torch 

of democracy; 

Whereas youth need a safe haven from various negative influences such as child abuse, substance abuse and crime, 

and they need to have resources readily available to assist 

them when faced with circumstances that compromise 

their safety; 
2

SRES 71 ATS 

Whereas the United States needs increased numbers of community volunteers acting as positive influences on the 

Nation’s youth; 

Whereas the Safe Place program is committed to protecting 

our Nation’s most valuable asset, our youth, by offering 

short term ‘‘safe places’’ at neighborhood locations where 

trained volunteers are available to counsel and advise 

youth seeking assistance and guidance; 

Whereas the Safe Place program combines the efforts of the 

private sector and non-profit organizations uniting to 

reach youth in the early stages of crisis; 

Whereas the Safe Place program provides a direct way to assist programs in meeting performance standards relative 

to outreach and community relations, as set forth in the 

Federal Runaway and Homeless Youth Act guidelines; 

Whereas the Safe Place placard displayed at businesses within communities stands as a beacon of safety and refuge 

to at-risk youth; 

Whereas more than 700 communities in 41 states and more 

than 14,000 locations have established Safe Place programs; 

Whereas more than 75,000 young people have gone to Safe 

Place locations to get help when faced with crisis situations; 

Whereas through the efforts of Safe Place coordinators 

across the country each year more than one-half million 

students learn that Safe Place is a resource if abusive or 

neglectful situations exist; and 

Whereas increased awareness of the program’s existence will 

encourage communities to establish Safe Places for the 
3

SRES 71 ATS 

Nation’s youth throughout the country: Now, therefore, 

be it

1 Resolved, That the Senate—

2 (1) proclaims the week of March 13 through 

3 March 19, 2005 as ‘‘National Safe Place Week’’ and 

4 (2) calls upon the people of the United States 

5 and interested groups to promote awareness of and 

6 volunteer involvement in the Safe Place programs, 

7 and to observe the week with appropriate ceremonies 

8 and activities.

Æ
Order entered June 24 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 01411
- CR ANTHONY PHIFER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Ca use No. F14
- 75027
- V



### O RDER On May 21, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s brief had not been filed. On June 10, 2015, we received appellant’s brief. On June 15, 2015, we struck the brief tendered by counsel because it contained the complete name of the complaining witness. We ordered counsel to file, within ten days, an amended brief that identifies the complaining witness by her initials only. The Court now has before it appellant’s June 22, 2015
motion to extend time to file his brief. However, the extension request addresses the brief that was tendered on June 10, 2015, and is not in response to this Court’s order striking the brief and ordering it redrawn. Accordingly, we DENY the June 22, 2015 extension moti on as moot.The Court’s June 15, 2015 order striking the brief tendered on June 10, 2015 and

ordering that an amended brief be filed within ten days remains in effect. Appellant’s amended brief using only the initials of the child is due by MONDAY, JUNE 2 9, 2015

. We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to Daniel Oliphant and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.
/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Appendix(B(

LandBros(Aerial(Photography,( L.L.C.

Phantom(3(Professional(Specifications
February 12, 2012 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I am writing to request that Sun Country be authorized for a slot at Reagan National Airport 

under an exemption rule (Docket No. FAA-2012-0089). The daily Sun Country direct flight from 

Lansing Ml to Washington DC connects legislators from Michigan's capital to the nation's 

capital, and eases travel for state businesses, for Michigan State University faculty and 

students, and for Lans'ing-area private citizens. 

Sun Country has safely flown over 48,000 passengers on this route since receiving the slot last 

April. Having these flights available is important for our region's economy. 

,Please.consider-the.Lansing.region's economic development efforts when making your decision: 

Thank you. 

Helen W. Ross 

J '• 0 

V y^ . ^MPKZ^ 

1401 Somerset Close St 

East Lansing, Ml 48823 

("'1 

CO 

t ! 

CD 

oQS 

CO
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 519 

Congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the National Basketball 

Association Championship. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 21, 2006 

Mr. MARTINEZ (for himself and Mr. NELSON of Florida) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the Miami Heat for winning the National 

Basketball Association Championship. 

Whereas on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, the Miami Heat defeated the Dallas Mavericks by a score of 95 to 92, in 

Dallas, Texas; 

Whereas that victory marks the first National Basketball Association (NBA) Championship for the Miami Heat franchise; 

Whereas after losing the first 2 games of the NBA Finals, 

the Heat came back to win 4 games in a row, which 

earned the team an overall record of 69–37 and the right 

to be named NBA champions; 

Whereas Pat Riley, over his 11 seasons with the Heat, has 

maintained a standard of excellence within the franchise 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 519 ATS 

and has won his fifth championship as head coach of an 

NBA team; 

Whereas Dwyane Wade, who averaged 34.7 points in the series, was named the Most Valuable Player of the NBA 

Finals following the Heat victory; 

Whereas Shaquille O’Neal fulfilled his 2004 promise to his 

teammates and the residents of Miami by delivering the 

title to the Miami Heat; 

Whereas each member of the Miami Heat roster, including 

Derek Anderson, Shandon Anderson, Earl Barron, Michael Doleac, Udonis Haslem, Jason Kapono, Alonzo 

Mourning, Shaquille O’Neal, Gary Payton, James Posey, 

Wayne Simien, Dwyane Wade, Antoine Walker, Jason 

Williams, and Dorell Wright, played a meaningful role in 

bringing the NBA Championship to Miami; 

Whereas owner Micky Arison has built a top-flight sports 

franchise and shown a consistent commitment to bringing 

a winning team to Miami; and 

Whereas the Miami Heat and its fans are hot in the wake 

of its first NBA championship: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (a) congratulates the Miami Heat for its victory in 

3 the 2006 National Basketball Association Championship; 

4 and 

5 (b) requests the Secretary of the Senate to transmit 

6 for appropriate display an enrolled copy of this resolution 

7 to— 

8 (1) the owner of the Miami Heat, Micky Arison; 

9 and 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 519 ATS 

1 (2) the general manager and coach of the 

2 Miami Heat, Pat Riley. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Tanks

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and

controllers.

This tele ph one contact report supports EPA’ s development of cost element (2 ) by documenting EPA's

communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs and information for tanks used in the Steam Electric

cost model.Project No.: 0172. 08 .02 9 .0 4 4 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam /Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 06 / 2 2 / 2011 Time: 1:45 p m P D T

Company Name: Fisher Tank Company Contact Name: Fred Ruinen

Phone No : ( 803)

- 359

- 4173 ext. 2713

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for carbon steel field

- built tanks for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system.

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On June 2 2 , 20 1 1 at 1 : 45 p m I contacted Mr. Fred Ruinen . I explained to M r

. Ruinen that we are working

on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD (flue gas

desulfurization) wastewater fr om steam electric power plants

, and a s a part of this project we are trying to

collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system

.

I told Mr. Ruinen that we are interested in carbon steel tanks . I requested information such as purchase cost,

cost for ancillary equipments and power consumption (if applicable)

. Mr. Ruinen stated that they provide only

field

- built tanks. The tank sizes range from 30,000 gal to 10,000,000 gal. The smallest tank is 1 5

- 16 feet in

diameter. Tank height increases in 8 foot increments. A 1,000,000 gal tank would be 60 feet in diameter and 40

feet tall. Typically

, for wastewater treatment, tanks are 16

- 24 feet tall and have a larger diameter. Mr

. Ruinen

requested I email h im our request and questions and he would follow up via email.