alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DORIAN KYLE SERMON,

 Appellant, 

v.

MARISOL HERNANDEZ,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-20-00071-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM0750)

O R D E R

On April 9, 2020, the Clerk of the Court sent Appellant a second notice that the $205 case 

filing fee was past due. The notice requested payment of the fee and informed Appellant that failure 

to make payment could be a ground for dismissing this appeal for want of prosecution. Following 

the filing of the reporter’s record and the clerk’s record, the Clerk of the Court, on June 24, 2020, 

sent Appellant an additional notice stating that neither an Appellant’s Brief or a motion for 

extension of time had been filed and that we intended to dismiss this case for want of prosecution 

absent a response from Appellant within 10 days. 
2

On July 7, 2020, Appellant filed a response requesting more time to pay the case filing fee 

due to financial difficulties related to the ongoing COVID-19 situation. Appellant has since paid 

the case filing fee. However, to date no Appellant’s Brief has been filed in this appeal, nor has 

Appellant provided an explanation for not filing an Appellant’s Brief.

Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Texas Supreme Court’s Twenty-Second Emergency Order 

Regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster, Misc. Docket No. 20-9095 (Tex. Aug. 6, 2020), this 

Court may modify certain deadlines in response to concerns related to COVID-19. Given that 

Appellant has indicated that COVID-related issues may be causing a delay, we exercise our 

authority under the Emergency Order to extend the deadline to file a brief.

Therefore, we GRANT Appellant an additional 30 days from the date of this order to file 

a brief. This extension is FINAL and NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME WILL BE 

CONSIDERED ABSENT JUST CAUSE. Failure to timely file this brief may result in this case 

being dismissed, without further notice, for want of prosecution and/or failure to comply with an 

order of this Court. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.3(b), (c).

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
Case No. 14,644.

#### UNITED STATES v. BRIDGES.

[10 Cent. Law J 7;127 Pittsb. Leg. J. 152.]

Circuit Court, N D. Alabama.

Oct. Term. 1879.

Tuial — Criminal Procedure — Sealed Verdict —Polling Jury.

Where a defendant in a criminal case agrees to a sealed verdict and the jury deliver their'verdict finding him guilty to the clerk of the conn and ’'then separate, the defendant has no right to have the jury polled when the verdict is read.

[pited in Doyle .. U. S., 10 Fed. 272.]

The defendant was indicted for perjury. After the court had charged the jury, it tlien being night, one of the defendant’s counsel said that the jury might bring in a “sealed verdict.” The judge presiding said that the court would not immediately adjourn. After a short interval, the jury not having returned their verdict, the judge left the court house. That night about two o’clock, the jury delivered a sealed verdict to the cleric of the court, and separated. The court was opened the next morning at ten o’clock. The jury all being present, the verdict, signed by the foreman of the jury, was opened and read in the presence of the defendant: “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment.” One of the attorneys representing the defendant immediately rose and said: “May it please the court, I move that the jury be polled.” The court, Bruce, J., presiding, overruled the motion to ¡>oll the jury, for the reason that the defendant by his counsel had agreed to a sealed verdict, and that the jury had filed their sealed verdict with the clerk, and had separated. At a subsequent day of the term, the defendant moved for a new trial, alleging as one ground that he had been denied the right to poll the jury.

Walker & Shelby, for the motion,

cited: 1 Bish. Cr. Proe. § S30; U. S. v. Potter [Case No. 16.07S]; Fox v. Smith, 3 Cow. 23; Sargent v. State, 11 Ohio. 472; State v. Hughes. 2 Ala. 102; Brister v. State, 2<> Ala. 132.

Charles E. Meyer, contra, cited:

1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 830; Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. 496; State v. Wise. 7 Rich. Law, 412; Cook v. State, (SO Ala. 39.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

BRUCE. District Judge,

in an oral opinion. commented upon the cases cited by defendant’s counsel, distinguishing them from the ease at bar. and overruling the motion for a new trial. He adhered to the former ruling, that where a defendant agrees to a sealed verdict, and the jury find him guilty, and deliver the verdict sealed to the clerk of the court and separate, the defendant has waived his right to have the jury polled when the verdict is read.
Exhibit 35.2



LOGO

OFFICERS CERTIFICATE

C-III Asset Management LLC

The undersigned, Barry Davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC (f/k/a Centerline Servicing LLC), the
Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, relating to the Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-P3, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through
Certificates, Series 2016-P3(the Pooling and Servicing Agreement), hereby certifies as follows:



|1. | a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the calendar year 2017 (the Reporting Period) has been made under the
undersigneds supervision;
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | to the best of the undersigneds knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer maintained an effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has
fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.
|-- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized
terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,as of the 1st
day of March, 2018, I have hereunto signed my name.



/s/ Barry DavisBarry Davis, PresidentC-III Asset Management LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company


CGCMT 2016-P3
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROLAND E. SMITH, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 604, 40 CMR 316

No. 22,139

September 26, 1969

*605
      *Lieutenant Kenneth F. Ripple,*JAGO, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel C. R. Larouche,*USMC, *Lieutenant Colonel Charles J. Keever,*USMC, *Captain Lester G. Fant, III,*USMCR, and *Captain Charles E. Patterson,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

DARDEN, Judge:

The accused was tried and convicted by a special court-martial convened at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, for dereliction of duty, in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892. Intermediate appellate authorities have affirmed his conviction.

The specification under the charge alleges dereliction of dirty' on or about January 21, 1969, “in that he [the accused] willfully failed to,properly walk his post, the said Post Number 1, French Creek Area, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, by sitting down upon said post.” The record is devoid of evidence that would sustain such an allegation.

Prosecution has shown that the accused was posted as a sentinel on Post Number 1 by the Corporal of the Guard at 3:45 a.m., on the morning in question. • Accused gave no indication that he was sick or otherwise • unable to perform his duty. At- approximately 4:15 a.m., the Officer of the Day checked Post Number 1 and could not find Smith. A search for the accused followed. The Sergeant of the Guard found Smith at 5:50 a.m., off post, apparently asleep on a couch in Building 304. In essence, a violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 892, is alleged and charged, yet an entirely separate violation showing the misbehavior of a sentinel leaving his post before being properly relieved, in violation of Article 113, Code, supra, 10 USC § 913, is proved. This variation between allegation and proof is fatal, necessitating reversal of the accused’s conviction. United States v Elisey, 16 USCMA 455, 37 CMR 75; United States v Dotson, 17 USCMA 352, 38 CMR 150.

Accordingly, the decision of the board of review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. The charge and its specification are ordered dismissed.

Chief Judge Quinn and Judge FeR-guson concur.
No. 54268.

#### Spanish American Tobacco Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 135080-K (San Juan).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

The plaintiff purchased the cigarette-making machine in St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. It was not disclosed how the machine arrived there except that it was shipped from Tortola, British West Indies, to St. Thomas. The certificate of exportation of the machine from the United States was not produced nor was there any evidence establishing that no drawback was paid at the time of exportation. At the trial counsel for the plaintiff was unable to establish why the certificate was not produced. Under the mandatory regulations, in order to obtain free entry of American goods returned, the certificate of exportation must be filed, unless waived by the collector. The deputy collector at the port of San Juan testified that had evidence been produced establishing that there had not been any drawback claimed at the time of exportation from the United States, the certificate would have been waived. In view of the fact that the mandatory regulations were not complied with, the court was constrained to enter judgment in favor of the Government. The protest was therefore overruled.
No. 43107.

#### Protest 990739-G of Stuart Lumber & Export Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown; J.

On the record presented the protest was overruled.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 191]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ191.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 646]]

Public Law 110-191
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes. <<NOTE:  
                     Feb. 29, 2008 -  [H.R. 5264]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Andean Trade Preference 
Extension Act of 2008.>> assembled,
SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 19 USC 3201 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Andean Trade Preference Extension Act 
of 2008''.
SEC. 2. ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT.

    (a) Extension.--Section 208 of the Andean Trade Preference Act (19 
U.S.C. 3206) is amended by striking ``February 29, 2008'' and inserting 
``December 31, 2008''.
    (b) Treatment of Certain Apparel Articles.--Section 204(b)(3) of the 
Andean Trade Preference Act (19 U.S.C. 3203(b)(3)(B)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in clause (iii)--
                          (i) in subclause (II), by striking ``5 
                      succeeding 1-year periods'' and inserting ``6 
                      succeeding 1-year periods''; and
                          (ii) in subclause (III)(bb), by inserting 
                      ``and for the succeeding 1-year period,'' after 
                      ``for the 1-year period beginning October 1, 
                      2007,''; and
                    (B) in clause (v)(II), by striking ``4 succeeding 1-
                year periods'' and inserting ``5 succeeding 1-year 
                periods''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (E)(ii)(II), by striking ``December 31, 
        2006'' and inserting ``December 31, 2008''.
SEC. 3. CUSTOMS USER FEES.

    Section 13031(j)(3) of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1985 (19 U.S.C. 58c(j)(3)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``December 13, 2014'' 
        and inserting ``December 27, 2014''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``December 13, 
        2014'' and inserting ``December 27, 2014''.

[[Page 122 STAT. 647]]

SEC. 4. <<NOTE: 26 USC 6655 note.>> TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE 
                    ESTIMATED TAXES.

    The percentage under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of the Tax 
Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in effect on the date 
of the enactment of this Act is increased by 0.25 percentage points.

    Approved February 29, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5264:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 110-529 (Comm. on Ways and Means).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Feb. 27, considered and passed House.
            Feb. 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2015262EN.01004102.xml

| 10.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/41

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2015 — Centurione v Commission

(Case F-43/15) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Officials - Social security - Accident - Article 73 of the Staff Regulations - Common rules on insurance against the risk of accident and of occupational disease - Setting of the degree of partial permanent invalidity - Report of the Medical Committee - Article 82 of the Rules of Procedure - Absolute bar to proceeding - Lack of concordance between the action and the claim - Inadmissibility))

(2015/C 262/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Fernando Centurione (Nivelles, Belgium) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and T.S. Bohr, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decision of the Commission recognising only a partial rate of permanent invalidity of 2 % following the accident at work suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015, p. 29.

1

---
# Advanced Flight Maneuvers<***) 

# !JI Fly a 4 point square box clockwise and rotate the phantom in the direction of travel.



# -----**---- -~**  

# , \ 

# , \

# ~~ --

# lfii~~**'~,** iii1F "

f 1111 ', 

# l \**------ -----------** **~~** Fly a circle counter-clockwise and keep the aircraft nose pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.



# ---------- ------------- , ; 

# .... 

# m Fly a circle counter-clockwise with the aircraft nose pointed at the center of the circle. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible. 

### ®

# Advanced Flight Maneuvers

# <* 

# * * )
D

[J Fly a figure 8 without rotating the Phantom. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

Fly a Figura 

### 8 with the aircraft nose ofthe Phantom pointed in the direction of travel. Be sure to keep the altitude the same and the circle as uniform as possible.

Fly Figure 8 pattems while e11perimenting with different orientations. For ex3mple, aircraft nose alway$ pointed in a given direc:tion or opposite/left/rightthe direc:tion oftravel, etc:. Be sureto keep the altitude thesame and the c:irc:le as uniform as poasible.

# EmergencySituations 

# D R•turn Hom• 

## &: Land Mod• Be 5ure you are in a large open area. Before you take off, make aure you have a good GPS lock by enauring your LED indic:eton; are fle!ihing Green. Fly the Phentom et leelit 50ft away from yourtake off point. Turn offthe Remote Controller. The Phantom will enter it's failsafe Return-To-Home Mode. Letthe Phantom finish it's routine end lend itselfwithin 2 meters 

### ofthe take off point. 

# -=tsF---

_ .____-----'

I



# El • 15 meters



### lnt•rc:•pting R•tum Hom. & 

### Land Mod• Be sure you ere in a large open area. Beforeyou take off, make sure you have a goad GPS lock by ensuring your LED indicators are flashing Green. Fly the Phantom 50ftaway from yourtake off paint. Turn 

### cH the Remote Controller. The Phantom will enter it's failsafe Return-To-Home Made. When the Phantom 

### is returning home, you can intercept RTH Mode by switching the Sl Switch from the top position to the middle or lower position, then continue flying the Phantom.

# --**---·** - 

# . 

# ' • ,15 meters

## www.dji.com

Copyright:2014 DJIInnovations. All Rights Reserved

.
EXHIBIT 32.2
------------

                              UNITED-GUARDIAN, INC.
                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     I, Robert S. Rubinger,  Chief Financial Officer of  United-Guardian,  Inc.,
hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the  Quarterly  Report of
United-Guardian, Inc. on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and that information  contained in this Form 10-QSB fairly
presents  in all  material  respects  the  financial  condition  and  results of
operations of United-Guardian, Inc.


Date:  May 8, 2007                       By: /s/ Robert S. Rubinger
                                             ----------------------
                                             Robert S. Rubinger
# C_2017178EN.01001801.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/18

---

Order of the General Court of 28 March 2017 — LG Electronics v EUIPO — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY PRO)

(Case T-500/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 178/23)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Wulff and U. Hildebrandt, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 June 2015 (Case R 1940/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH and LG Electronics, Inc.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

LG Electronics, Inc., is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and Cyrus Wellness Consulting GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
FILED

September 9, 1996

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Filed: September 9, 1996

CHARLES M. CARY, JR., )

) Hardeman Law

Appellant, )

)

VS. ) No. 02S01-9505-CV-00035

)

CATHY ANN CARY, )

)

Appellee, )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s motion to amend the judgment to

delete the award of attorney fees, the Court concludes that the motion is without

merit and should be denied. It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
No. 41983.

#### Protests 764152-G, etc., of Long Sang Ti Chinese Curio Co. (New York).

Opinion by

McClelland, P. J.

The protests were submitted without evidence in support of the claims made. They were therefore overruled.
# C_2019122EN.01003102.xml

| 1.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 122/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 122/31

---

Order of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — British Aggregates and Others v Commission

(Case T-741/15) (1)

(2019/C 122/36)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

---