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

San Antonio, Texas

September 27, 2018

No. 04-18-00607-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.A.M., ET AL,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017-PA-02510

Honorable Susan D. Reed, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant B.J.P. seeks to appeal from a final order terminating her parental rights. An 

appeal from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405. The trial court 

signed the final order of termination on August 7, 2018. Because this is an accelerated appeal, 

the notice of appeal was due on August 27, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b) (requiring notice 

of appeal to be filed within twenty days after the judgment is signed in an accelerated appeal);

see also TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(c) (filing of a motion for new trial does not extend the 

appellate deadline). A motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was therefore due 

on September 11, 2018. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 (providing a fifteen-day grace period after the 

deadline for filing notice of appeal). Appellant B.J.P. filed her notice of appeal on August 28, 

2018, within the fifteen-day grace period allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file 

the notice of appeal; however, no motion for extension was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day 

grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. 

Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing predecessor to Rule 26). However, the 

appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely 

manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C).

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant B.J.P. file, within ten (10) days from the date of 

this order, a response presenting a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal 

in a timely manner. If appellant B.J.P. fails to respond within the time provided, her appeal will 

be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 27th day of September, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
No. 53729.

petition 6631-R (Laredo).

#### Maid-Rite Garment Co. *v.*United States,

*210Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

The owner of the petitioning company testified that he employed customs brokers in Philadelphia to attend to the clearance of the goods; that when he was informed by customs officials at Laredo that the entered value was not considered by the appraiser as the proper dutiable value, he promptly notified the brokers; that when he found no action had been taken by the brokers, he consulted customs officials in Philadelphia and sent a check to the port of entry in payment for the increased duties; and that the check did not arrive at Laredo until 3 days after the appraisement had been completed, too late for an amendment to the entry to be allowed. A representative of the customs brokers at Laredo testified that when they received notice from the customs authorities that the value declared on entry was too low, they informed the Mexican broker, giving him information as to the amount of supplemental duties involved, and that he, in turn, was to contact the petitioner; that the Laredo brokers then made an amendment to the entry, presenting said amended entry to the customhouse; that the collector, in the absence of payment of the supplemental duties, returned the amended entry to the brokers. On the record presented the court found that the entry at less than the final appraised value was due to a peculiar set of circumstances surrounding the importation, there being a number of persons involved who were geographically separated from one another, and that the time element played an important part. It was held that the importer and its agents acted without intent to defraud the Government or deceive its officials as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
# C_2017213EN.01001001.xml

| 3.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 213/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/10

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College

(Case C-699/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration))

(2017/C 213/09)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Applicant:

Defendant: Brockenhurst College

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that activities carried out in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from value added tax (VAT), provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.

1

---
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 627 

Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 9, 2005, terrorist 

attacks in Amman, Jordan. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 7, 2006 

Mr. LUGAR (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, and Mr. REID) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the November 

9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jordan. 

Whereas on November 9, 2005, a series of terrorist bombs 

exploded at the Radisson, Hyatt, and Days Inn hotels in 

Amman, Jordan, resulting in the deaths of scores of civilians and the injuries of hundreds of others; 

Whereas Jordan has been targeted in several terrorist attacks 

over the past few years and likely remains a target for 

Islamic extremists; 

Whereas Jordan provided unequivocal support to the United 

States after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; 

Whereas Jordan has arrested suspected terrorists with possible ties to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

SRES 627 ATS 

and has provided other critical support to the global war 

on terrorism; and 

Whereas Jordan remains a firm ally of the United States in 

the global war against terrorism and in helping to achieve 

a lasting peace in the Middle East: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) notes with sorrow the one-year anniversary 

3 of the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in 

4 Amman, Jordan; 

5 (2) condemns in the strongest possible terms 

6 the November 9, 2005, terrorist attacks; 

7 (3) expresses its ongoing condolences to the 

8 families and friends of those individuals who were 

9 killed in the attacks and its sympathies to those in10 dividuals who were injured; 

11 (4) reiterates its support of the Jordanian peo12 ple and their government; 

13 (5) values the strong and lasting friendship be14 tween Jordan and the United States and the con15 tinuing cooperation of the two nations in political, 

16 economic, and humanitarian endeavors; and 

17 (6) expresses its readiness to support and assist 

18 the Jordanian authorities in their efforts to pursue, 

19 disrupt, undermine, and dismantle the networks that 

20 plan and carry out such terrorist attacks as the NoVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:47 Dec 08, 2006 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR627.ATS SR627

ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

SRES 627 ATS 

1 vember 9, 2005, terrorist attacks in Amman, Jor2 dan. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-12321

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00207-SCB-TGW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

FREDDIE WILSON, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 22, 2019)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, WILSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Freddie Wilson is a federal inmate serving a 102-month sentence for 

converting to his personal use United States Treasury checks issued as a result of 

fraudulently filed federal income tax returns. See United States v. Wilson, 788 

F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2015) (affirming conviction and sentence on direct appeal); 

Wilson v. United States, No. 17-14204-J, 2018 WL 4676492, at *2 (11th Cir. Sept. 

13, 2018) (denying COA for Wilson to appeal the district court’s denial of his 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 motion). Proceeding pro se, he appeals the district court’s denial of 

his motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 36 to correct clerical errors 

in his indictment, presentence investigation report, and judgment. We construe 

Wilson’s filings liberally given his pro se status, Mederos v. United States, 218 

F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 2000), and review de novo the district court’s 

application of Rule 36, United States v. Portillo, 363 F.3d 1161, 1164 (11th Cir. 

2004).

Rule 36 allows a court to “correct a clerical error in a judgment, order, or 

other part of the record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight or 

omission.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Wilson contends that there are several errors in 

need of correcting, including the district court’s refusal to dismiss two of his 

counts of conviction, its application of a sentence enhancement based on a total 

loss amount that he says should not have been attributed to him, and its imposition 

of a sentence far above what he argues the mandatory minimum should have been.

Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 2 of 3 
3

 “It is clear in this Circuit that Rule 36 may not be used to make a 

substantive alteration to a criminal sentence.” Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164 (quotation 

marks omitted). And it is equally clear that Wilson’s challenges to his sentence 

call for such substantive changes. Cf. id. at 1165 (describing clerical errors under 

Rule 36 as “minor and mechanical in nature”). As a result, the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to grant Wilson relief and properly denied the request. See id. at 1164.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 18-12321 Date Filed: 02/22/2019 Page: 3 of 3
**Exhibit 32.2**

**Certification of the Chief Financial OfficerPursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

I, Frederic F.Brace, the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of United AirLines, Inc. (the “Company”) certify that to the best of my knowledge,based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for theperiod ended September 30, 2006 of the Company (the “Report”):

(1)         The Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

| /s/ Frederic F. Brace                                |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Frederic F. Brace                                    |
| United Air Lines. Inc.                               |
| Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| November  14, 2006                              |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        1,213,320
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         38,507
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                             173,657
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           360,924
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,786,408
<COMMON>                                           282,034
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                              (74)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                163,587
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     445,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                          4,299
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               643,173
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                       0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                           82,172
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                           0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        6,806
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                         16,415
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       354
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                     587,642
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    1,786,408
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                          168,667
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                15,525
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         129,935
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                         145,460
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             23,207
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                     435
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      23,642
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            12,538
<NET-INCOME>                                         9,901
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             51
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        9,850
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                            10,110
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                           41,014
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              18,796
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.70
        



</TABLE>
# C_2016136EN.01000601.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/6

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 13 January 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Itzehoe — Germany) — Raffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG v Gerhild Lukath

(Case C-397/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - First Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of the Rome Convention - Articles 1 and 2(a) and (b) - National courts entitled to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling - Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Court))

(2016/C 136/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Landgericht Itzehoe

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffeisen Privatbank Liechtenstein AG

Applicant:

Defendant: Gerhild Lukath

Defendant:

in the presence of: Rüdiger Boy, Boy Finanzberatung GbhH, Christian Maibaum, Vienna-Life Lebensversicherung AG, Frank Weber

in the presence of:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly does not have jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Landgericht Itzehoe (Regional Court, Itzehoe (Germany)) for a preliminary ruling by decision of 15 June 2015 in Case C-397/15.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
# C_2015381EN.01001301.xml

| 16.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Taranto (Italy) lodged on 10 August 2015 — Criminal proceedings against Davide Durante

(Case C-438/15)

(2015/C 381/16)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunale di Taranto

Party to the main proceedings

Party to the main proceedings

Davide Durante

Question referred

Question referred

Must Articles 43, 49 and 56 et seq. TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation in the field of betting and gambling which, for the purposes of the launching of a fresh call for tenders for the award of licences as provided for by Article [10](9 g) of Law No 44 of 26 April 2012, regards as grounds for exclusion from the tendering procedure a tenderer’s failure to demonstrate economic and financial capacity, without providing, for the purpose of that demonstration, when references are supplied by one bank only, for appropriate criteria other than the stipulated requirement of two different references given by two different banking institutions?

---
No. 39052.

#### Petition 5495-R of Mando Trading Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The circumstances of this particular case convincing the court that the importer was without any intention to defraud the revenue or to conceal or misrepresent the facts, the petition was granted.
# C_2016364EN.01003501.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/35

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 20 July 2016 — Adriaen and Others v Commission

(Case F-113/15) (1)

((Civil service - Officials - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2014 promotion exercise - General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Lists of officials proposed for promotion by the Directors-General and heads of service - Omission of the applicants’ names - Possibility of challenging before the Joint Promotion Committee the list of officials proposed for promotion - Consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion - Opinions adopted by a joint body - Obligation to state grounds))

(2016/C 364/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Charlotte Adriaen (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: R. Rata, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser, G. Berscheid and A.-A. Gilly, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions of the appointing authority not to include the applicants on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2014 annual promotion exercise.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that Ms Adriaen and the 12 other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that Ms Adriaen and the 12 other applicants whose names appear in the annex shall bear their own costs and orders them to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28/9/2015, p. 55.

---
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 17, 2016, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2016-1 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 30, 2018By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

Executive Vice President Capital Markets and TreasurerDate:

March 30, 2018
<PAGE>

                                                 2444 Wilshire Blvd.
                                                 Suite 414
                                                 Santa Monica, CA 90403
                                                 Ph. 310.829.9590


                ULTIMATE SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

                                                 January 20, 2000

MICHAEL JOHNSON
MJ SPORTS
2936 WEST CANYON AVE.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123

Dear Michael:

The following will constitute the Agreement, by and between MJ Sports and
Ultimate Sports Entertainment, Inc.:

    The term will cover the 2000 Major League Baseball Season, beginning
    January 1, 2000 and ending with the 2000 World Series.  MJ Sports will
    have exclusive in-stadium concession rights to distribute for sale
    Ultimate Sports non-premium comic books featuring Major League
    Baseball Players as animated cartoon superheroes.  MJ Sports will have
    the right to pursue specific team "custom comics" for in-stadium
    non-premium concession sales as well.  Ultimate Sports will pay MJ Sports
    a comission of $.10 (ten cents) per comic book sold, with said
    comission payable within 10 days of Ultimate Sports receipt of payment
    from the in-stadium concessionaire.  MJ Sports agrees that the teams
    will pay all freight/shipping costs.

If the terms of the Agreement above are acceptable, please indicate so by
signing in the space provided below.


/s/ Michael Johnson
--------------------
Michael Johnson
MJ Sports                              Sincerely,

                                       /s/ Frederick R. Licht

                                       Frederick R. Licht, Esq.