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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Houston Lee Arrowood v. State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00912-CV

Trial court case number: 11JV0116

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 2 of Galveston County

Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Brief is denied.

Appellant’s brief in this case was originally due on February 25, 2013. It is the ordinary 

practice of this court to grant no more than 3 extensions of 30 days each. With his first motion 

for extension of time, appellant’s counsel requested, and received, an extension of 60 days, to 

April 29, 2013. Appellant’s counsel next requested an additional 120 days to file the brief, 

because he was “busy with several serious trials over the next 120 days and needs the additional 

time.” We noted that this explanation did not support counsel’s extraordinary request that he be 

permitted to file appellant’s brief nearly six months after the brief originally became due. We 

granted the request in part and denied the request in part, and ordered counsel to file the brief by 

June 28, 2013. Counsel was notified that no further extensions would be granted absent 

extraordinary circumstances.

Appellant’s counsel is now requesting, for the second time, an additional 120 days to file 

the brief, extending the deadline to file the brief to October 28, 2013. The reason given for this 

lengthy extension request is identical to the reason given in the previous motion for extension:

“[c]urrently appellate [sic] is busy with several serious trials over the next 120 days and needs 

the additional time.” Again, this does not support counsel’s extraordinary request that he be 

permitted to file appellant’s brief nearly seven months after the brief originally became due.

Accordingly, counsel is hereby ORDERED to file appellant’s brief within 30 days of the 

date of this order. This is an appeal from a delinquency proceeding, and although delinquency 

proceedings are civil proceedings, they are quasi-criminal in nature. See In re M.P.A., 364 

S.W.3d 277, 282 n. 2 (Tex. 2012). Accordingly, if appellant’s brief is not filed by the deadline, 

this Court will abate this case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether counsel should 

be held in contempt for failing to comply with an order of this court, whether substitute counsel 

should be appointed for the appellant, and for further appropriate findings and recommendations. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8.

It is so ORDERED.
Judge’s signature: /s/ Rebeca Huddle

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: __July 9, 2013____________________
November 8, 1967

No. 67-12.

#### James Henry Latney, Able-Bodied Seaman, U. S. Merchant Marine v Paul R. Ignatius, Secretary of the Navy, et al.

*Petition for Reconsideration Denied:*
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA- 2011 - 0255 Directorate Identifier: 2010NM253AD

A310 - 24 - 2106 --- 5/27/10

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 03/05/2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          15,174
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,017
<ALLOWANCES>                                    40,074
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               213,269
<PP&E>                                         118,515
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,513
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 320,100
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          100,160
<BONDS>                                         72,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           275
<OTHER-SE>                                     138,595
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   320,100
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               175,180
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,613
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 39,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                    15,617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    23,809
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.84


</TABLE>
122 STAT. 1558 PUBLIC LAW 110–238—MAY 30, 2008 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 3035: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008): 

May 20, considered and passed Senate and House. 

Æ 

Public Law 110–238 

110th Congress 

An Act 

To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS. 

(a) EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.—Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 

note) is amended by striking ‘‘May 31, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘June 

30, 2008’’. 

(b) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section, or in 

the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this 

Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the authorizations 

of appropriations for, or the durations of, programs contained in 

the amendments made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2005 (Public Law 109–171), by the College Cost Reduction and 

Access Act (Public Law 110–84), or by the Ensuring Continued 

Access to Student Loans Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–227) to 

the provisions of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 2004. 

Approved May 30, 2008. 

20 USC 1001 

note. 

May 30, 2008 

[S. 3035] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29 with PUBLIC LAWS
Exhibit 31.4

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to

Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Jeffrey M. Stafeil, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this
Amendment to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Adient plc for the year ended September 30, 2017;

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; and

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 operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.



By:

/s/ Jeffrey M. StafeilJeffrey M. StafeilExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

June 29, 2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

JEROME KING,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 457 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue, as phrased by the Commonwealth, is:

Did the Superior Court commit a significant and potentially far-reaching 

error of law when, in contravention of Pennsylvania law and the greater 

weight of authority nationally, it issued a published decision holding that 

PCRA courts may bar the Commonwealth from speaking with [a

defendant’s] trial counsel prior to evidentiary hearings on defense claims 

that counsel provided ineffective assistance?

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this 

matter.
Exhibit 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Security Instruments,
Inc. (the  "Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2004 as
filed  with  the   Securities   and  Exchange   Commission  and  to  which  this
Certification  is an exhibit (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned  hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

            (1)   The Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

            (2)   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in
                  all material respects,  the financial  condition and result of
                  operations of the Company for the periods reflected therein.

Date: November 14, 2005                            /s/ Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Harvey B. Grossblatt
                                                   Chief Executive Officer

                                                   /s/ James B. Huff
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   James B. Huff
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Senior Executive Service.**
 
2012 | 2014| 2015 | 2016| 2017
 
SuDoc Number:PM 1.79:
Item Number:0295-D-20 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001081966
 
October 9, 2018
#### Loretta OSBORNE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SBC DISABILITY INCOME PLAN; SBC Communications Inc.; Sedgwick C.M.S., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-20740.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided July 22, 2005.

Shira R. Yoshor, Baker Botts, Houston, TX, Jaime Mata, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Loretta Osborne has filed a motion in this court to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of her Employee Retirement and Income Security Act (ERISA) complaint. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Osborne’s claims after finding that the decision to deny Osborne long term disability benefits was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. The district court denied Osborne’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that her appeal was not taken in good faith.

*578Osborne’s financial affidavit establishes that she is unable to pay the costs of her appeal without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. *See Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.,*335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed. 43 (1948). However, Osborne does not address the reasons for the district court’s dismissal of her complaint. Osborne has failed to establish a nonfrivolous ground for appeal. *See Carson v. Polley,*689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir.1982); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Her IFP motion is DENIED. As the appeal contains no nonfrivolous issues, it is DISMISSED. *Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.1983); 5th Cm. R. 42.2. Osborne’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Blanchard *versus*Dow.

"When an officer of a corporation is required to be chosen by ballot, and the record of his election does not specify the mode, the legal presumption is that he was chosen by ballot.

A collector of taxes, who receives a surplus of money upon the sale of property for a tax, and who omits to render to the owner, “ an account in writing” of the sale and charges, is a trespasser *ah initio.*

Trespass for taking the plaintiff’s horse. The defendant admitted the taking, and set up, as a justification, *that*he was, the collector of taxes of the West Pittston Village Fire Company, established by the Act of 1847, chap. 34, of Special Acts; *that*the defendant was liable to taxation in that comany, and had been assessed in the tax bills, $44,15 ; *that*defendant refused to pay the same, and *that,*after duly advertising, &e., he sold the horse for $65,00, and *that,*after deducting therefrom the tax and cost, there remained'in his hands $16,78, which he offered to pay to the plaintiff.

The defendant contested the validity of the Special Act, and the regularity of the proceedings of the assessors and collector, and particularly that the record does not show the defendant to have been chosen by ballot. The fourth section of the Act requires the collector to collect the tax in like manner as State taxes are collected by towns. Much testimony, *558both documentary and oral, was introduced. It did not appear by the collector’s return, or by any other evidence, that the defendant, when offering the overplus, $ 16,78, to the plaintiff, presented any account in writing of the sale and charges, as required by Revised Statutes, chap. 14, sect. 67. The case was submitted for the decision of the court.

*Paine,*for the plaintiff, among other things, argued that the defendant was a trespasser *ab initio,*because he did not restore the surplus to the plaintiff immediately, or render to him an account of the sales and charges.

*Evans*and *Bradbury,*for the defendant.

Shepley, C. J.

It is said that the-defendant .was not legally chosen collector, because the record does not state, that he was chosen by ballot according to the provisions of the first article of the by-laws.

The presumption of law is, that he was legally chosen, when there is nothing in the record to show, that he was not. *Mussey*v. *White, 3*Greenl. 290.

When the overplus was tendered to the owner of the goods distrained, there is no proof made by the return of the collect- or, or by the other testimony introduced, that it was done “ with an" account in writing of the sale and charges.”

This is required by the provisions of the statute, chap. 14, sect. 67. The collector cannot make out a justification without showing, that he has complied with the provisions of the statute. Failing to do so, he becomes a trespasser *ab initio. Smith*v. Gates, 21 Pick. 55.

It is not necessary to notice the other points presented.

*Defendant defaulted.*
Exhibit 3.1









                            CERTIFICATE OF CHANGE

                                      OF

                          UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION

                          UNDER SECTION 805-A OF THE
                           BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW




















                           THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
                                2030 DOW CTR
                           MIDLAND,  MI  48674-2030













<PAGE>




                           CERTIFICATE OF CHANGE
                                     OF
                          UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION


            UNDER SECTION 805-A OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW

    1.  The name of the corporation is Union Carbide Corporation.  It was
incorporated under the name Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation.

    2.  The Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation was filed by the
Department of State on the November 1, 1917.

    3.  The following was authorized by the Board of Directors:





    To change the agent in New York upon whom all process
against the corporation may be served from Union Carbide Corporation located
at 39 Old Ridgebury Road, Danbury, CT to CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, at
111 Eighth Avenue, New York,  NY  10011.


    To designate CT CORPORATION SYSTEM, 111 Eighth Avenue,
New York, NY, 10011 as the registered agent in New York upon whom all
process against the corporation may be served.


                                       /s/ Cheryl E. Corbett
                                       Name and Capacity of Signer
                                       Cheryl E. Corbett, Assistant Secretary
                                       Union Carbide Corporation
                                       April 27, 2001


<PAGE>
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | Commercial
Mortgage ServicingD1050-084, 8th Fl401 South Tryon StreetCharlotte,
NC 282021-800-326-1334
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE



Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and
among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as
Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-P3 (the “Agreement”).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.



Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage
Services do hereby certify that:



|1. |  | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
|2. |  | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.                                                     



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of
the 28th day of February 2017.



|/s/ Daniel Bober         | 
|------------------------ | 
|Daniel Bober             | 
|Executive Vice President | 
|Wells Fargo Bank         | 



|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Together we’ll go far
|---------------------- | ---------------------
From: Seidel, Teresa (DNRE)
To: Adams, Lucy H. Cc: Marinshaw, Richard Subject: RE: Subpart N request - Chromium electroplating
Date: Monday, February 28, 2011 10:46:11 AM 

# Good Monday Lucy,
There may be additional information regarding each facility that you are looking at in the facility file. However, we do not have the staffing resources to conduct this review for you. We welcome you to come review the facility files to obtain the additional information you seek. You may also want to contact each facility directly to gather the additional information you need. Sorry we cannot be of further assistance.

Teresa

Teresa Seidel Air Quality Division Acting Field Operations Supervisor

Lansing 517-373-7037 Warren - 586-753-3730 Detroit - 313-456-4680

"Solution is possible where acceptance is ready."

- Pearl S Buck

From: Adams, Lucy H. [mailto:lhadams@rti.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:00 AM To: Seidel, Teresa (DNRE) Cc: Marinshaw, Richard Subject: Subpart N request - Chromium electroplating

Dear Ms. Seidel;

Thank you for sending the test reports. Now that we have had a chance to review the information, we would like to know if more facility and operations information might be available. For each facility, EPA could use information on:Tank dimensions Rectifier capacity (amperes) Limits on rectifier operation (ampere-hours per year) Maximum permitted process operating hours (hours per year) Typical process operating hours (hours per year)

I have found permits for the two Lacks facilities and Perfection Industries, but the information listed above is not in the permits. Is this information available in other documents such as permit applications or compliance reports, and could those be sent as well?

Thank you for your help,

Lucy Adams

RTI International 308B 800 Building Phone: 919-316-3916 Email: lhadams@rti.org www.rti.org