alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

August 4, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00380

- CV

IN RE W.W.

From the 45th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010

- CI

- 17241 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez , J udge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On July 31, 2020, this court issued its order denying Relator’ s petition for writ of mandamus and lifting this court’s stay of the trial court’s order at issue.

Real party in interest’s motions (1) to vacate or modify the stay, (2) to strike Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, and (3) to require Relator to ame nd the record are DENIED AS

MOOT.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said
court on this 4th day of August, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                             SUBSIDIARIES OF VLASIC

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
        NAME OF SUBSIDIARY AND NAME
        UNDER WHICH IT DOES BUSINESS            JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
        ----------------------------            -----------------------------
<S>                                             <C>
Freshbake Foods Limited                                 Great Britain
Stratford-Upon-Avon Foods Limited                       Great Britain
VF Brands, Inc.                                            Delaware
Vlasic Foods Distribution Company                          Arkansas
Vlasic Foods Canada, Inc.                                  Ontario
Vlasic International Brands Inc.                           Delaware
Vlasic International Sales Inc.                           New Jersey
Vlasic Standards, Inc.                                    New Jersey
</TABLE>


                                      (14)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                             School Specialty, Inc.
                        Valuation and Qualifying Accounts
    The Fiscal Years Ended April 29, 2000, April 28, 2001 and April 27, 2002

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Balance at    Charged to     Charged to                      Balance
                                              Beginning     Costs and        Other                       at End of
Description                       Date        of Period     Expenses        Accounts      Deductions       Period          Date
-----------                  --------------  ------------  ------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  --------------
<S>                          <C>             <C>           <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>             <C>
Allowance for doubtful
   Accounts .............    April 24, 1999    2,234,000     171,000       200,000(a)    (861,000)(b)     1,744,000   April 29, 2000
                             April 29, 2000    1,744,000     545,000     3,570,000(a)  (2,336,000)(b)     3,523,000   April 28, 2001
                             April 28, 2001    3,523,000    (663,000)      765,000(a)    (906,000)(b)     2,719,000   April 27, 2002



Restructuring reserve ....   April 24, 1999    2,752,000           -             -     (2,687,000)           65,000   April 29, 2000
                             April 29, 2000       65,000   4,500,000             -     (2,052,000)        2,513,000   April 28, 2001
                             April 28, 2001    2,513,000           -             -     (1,650,000)          863,000   April 27, 2002

</TABLE>


------------

(a)  Allowance for doubtful accounts acquired in purchase acquisitions.
(b)  Represents net of write-offs of uncollectable accounts receivable and
     recoveries of previously written-off accounts receivable.
No. 43161.

#### Protest 988256-G of L. Oppleman, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel thermometer cases, cups, dippers, and pails consisting of hollow vessels for holding articles, of the same kind as those the subject of Abstracts 42789 and 29490, were held dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 339 as claimed.
Texas Departme nt of

Transportation and Ballenger

Construction Company, s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00063

- CV

Hetul BHAKTA D/B/A Budget Inn,

Appellant

v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSP ORTATION and Ballenger Cons truction Company,

Inc.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 04

- 15888

- CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

T he District Clerk ’ s Notification of Late Record is GRANTED. The clerk ’ s record is due

on February 14, 2014.

___________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 5th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
---

Exhibit 99.12

Summary of Loan Agreement Entered into by and between Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd.

(the Company) and Shenzhen Eastern Branch, Agricultural Bank of China 
(the Creditor) dated January 6, 2010

Main contents

- Contract number: 81101201000000018;
- Loan principal: RMB 75 million;
- Loan term: from January 6, 2010 to January 6, 2011;
- Floating interest rate: annually 5.31%, rate adjustment in a 3-month cycle;

> Interest accrued and settled per month, interest settlement day is the 20th day of each month;
>       Penalty interest rate for delayed repayment: 5.31% plus 30% *5.31%;
>       Penalty interest rate for embezzlement of loan proceeds: 5.31% plus 50% *5.31%;

- Purpose of the loan is to provide working capital for purchasing raw material of the Company;
- Advanced repayment of loan needs to be approved by the Creditor;
- Breach of contract penalties: correct the breach of contract in time limit; suspension of loan unprovided; release loan agreement, demand prepayment of loan principal and interest before maturity; imposition of punitive interest
incurred due to delayed loan; imposition of punitive interest for embezzlement of loan; imposition of plural interest for unpaid interest; withdraw from any accounts of the Company the loan principal, interest and other fees; compensation for the
Creditors expenses incurred due to demanding the loan principal and interest in case of litigation, etc.
- Supplemental: in the event that the Company repaid the loan in advance, it has to pay extra handling fee: advanced repaid amount * share months * 1.

Headlines of the articles omitted:

- Loan arrangement
- Interest clearing of the loan
- Payment of the loan
- Rights and obligation of the Creditor
- Rights and obligations of the Company
- Interest penalty of loan
- Guarantee of the loan agreement
- Disputation settlement
- Validity
- Text
- Notification

---
PUBLIC LAW 115–203—JULY 23, 2018 132 STAT. 1531 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 447: 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 115–170 (Comm. on Energy and Commerce). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 163 (2017): June 12, considered and passed House. 

Vol. 164 (2018): June 28, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 115–203 

115th Congress 

An Act 

To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXTENSION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the time period specified 

in section 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

project numbered 12740, the Commission may, at the request of 

the licensee for the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the Commission’s procedures under that 

section, extend the time period during which the licensee is required 

to commence the construction of the project for up to 3 consecutive 

2-year periods from the date of the expiration of the extension 

originally issued by the Commission. 

(b) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.—If the period 

required for commencement of construction of the project described 

in subsection (a) has expired prior to the date of the enactment 

of this Act, the Commission may reinstate the license for the project 

effective as of the date of its expiration and the first extension 

authorized under subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of 

such expiration. 

Approved July 23, 2018. 

Effective dates. 

Time period. 

July 23, 2018 

[H.R. 447] 


smartinez on DSK30VT082PROD with PUBLAWS-PDF
No. 74-804.

#### Crouse *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
(logo)****CURCIO

+COHEN

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

Managing Member

Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC

New York, NY

 

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sReport on Assessment of 2016 Compliance by Park Bridge Lender Services LLC withRegulation AB Servicing Criteria (“Management’s Report”),that Park Bridge Lender Services LLC (the “Company”) complied withthe servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB as of and for the year ended December31, 2016, excluding those criteria noted as not applicable (N/A) within ExhibitB to Management’s Report. The transactions covered by this report are onlythose transactions processed by the Company in its capacity as trust advisor oroperating advisor for the asset backed securities transactions (the“Platform”) identified in Management’s Report. ReferenceExhibit A to Management’s Report for the transactions covered by thisexamination. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted inaccordance 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 applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of a selectedsample of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whetherthe Company performed those selected activities in compliance with theapplicable servicing criteria during the specified period. Our procedures werelimited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by theCompany during the period covered by this report. Our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance arising from errors that may haveoccurred prior to or subsequent to our tests, that may have affected theCompany’s servicing activities during the period covered by this report.We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’scompliance with the applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedapplicable servicing criteria identified in Exhibit B to Management’sReport with respect to the transactions identified in Exhibit A toManagement’s Report as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016, forthe Platform, is fairly stated in all material aspects.

 

 

/s/ Curcio & Cohen,CPA’s, P.C.

 

 

New York, NY

February 2, 2017

 

 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTSPC 7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 1500 NEW YORK NY 10001

TEL: 212 557-9800  FAX:212 557 9819   WEBSITE: WWW.CWCCPAFIRM.COM
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2319

JOHN STERLING PETTENGILL,
Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CITY OF RICHWOOD’S FEDERAL SEWER PROJECT; WEST VIRGINIA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE; THE SEWER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, of West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Joseph R. Goodwin, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cv-00290)

Submitted: May 22, 2009 Decided: June 15, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Sterling Pettengill, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
John Sterling Pettengill appeals the district court’s
order denying his motions to reopen his civil action. We have
reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons state d by the district court. See
Pettengill v. City of Richwood’s Fed. Sewer Project , No. 2:07-

cv-00290 (S.D. W. Va. Nov. 13, 2008). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas February 15, 2023 No. 04-22-00460-CV MILLSWORTH ENTERPRISES, LLC and Bo Fontana,

Appellant
v. TEXAS FIRST RENTALS, LLC ,

Appellee From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI04865 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On July 26, 2022, appellant filed with this court a motion for extension of time to file its notice of appeal. That motion was held in abeyance pending the filing of the clerks’ record. On September 13, 2022, the clerk’s record was filed. The trial court signed an “Order Confirming Arbitration Award Final Judgment” on June 24, 2022. Therefore, appellant’s notice of appeal was due on July 25, 2022. On July 26, 2022, appellant filed its notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. The motion presents a reasonable explanation for the one-day delay in filing the notice of appeal. Therefore, the motion is GRANTED.

_________________________________ Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 15th day of February, 2023.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00106-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 415th District Court

Parker County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR21-0847

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUSTIN ALAN HOHSTADT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Justin Alan Hohstadt attempts to appeal his conviction for evading arrest 

with a vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(b)(2)(A) (evading-arrest offense with a 

previous conviction). Hohstadt did not file a motion for new trial, making his notice of 

appeal due within 30 days of the September 14, 2022 judgment of conviction. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.2(a)(1). However, Hohstadt did not file his notice of appeal until May 15, 2023. 

We notified Hohstadt of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over 

his appeal and informed him that unless he filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal by May 25, 2023, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. 

We have received no response from Hohstadt.

Because Hohstadt’s notice of appeal was not timely and because a timely notice 

of appeal is an essential component of our jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f); Slaton v. State, 981 

S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); see also Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 110 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (discussing the rule of appellate procedure that preceded Rule 

26.2, which likewise required the filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days after the 

imposition of a sentence, and dismissing an untimely appeal for want of jurisdiction).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: June 8, 2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          71,111
<SECURITIES>                                    11,512
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                       413
<INVENTORY>                                     19,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               134,461
<PP&E>                                         152,295
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,775
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 225,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,522
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           317
<OTHER-SE>                                     196,523
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   225,287
<SALES>                                         75,829
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                75,829
<CGS>                                           42,929
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   42,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 (132)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  64
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,842
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                962
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
        

</TABLE>
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011�1003

Combined Multibeam and LIDAR Bathymetry Data from Eastern Long Island Sound and Westernmost Block Island Sound � A Regional Perspective

----

## Abstract 

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00235

- CR

QUENTIN RIOS
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 18FC

- 2919G

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cau se on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 10, 2021
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

# The National Guard: A 381-year heritage of service

By Maj. Gen. Mark E. BartmanOhio Adjutant General

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
"The National Guard's heritage dates back 381 years ago to the 13 original colonies when the Massachusetts Bay Colony militia was organized on Dec. 13, 1636. This makes the National Guard the oldest component of the U.S. Armed Forces. Throughout our history, the men and women of the Ohio National Guard have been a trusted, reliable team that is 'Always Ready, Always There,'"  said Army Maj. Gen. Mark Bartman, Ohio Adjutant General.

 

To view the full letter, please visit the Ohio National Guard website at:

The National Guard: A 381-year heritage of service

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Community L&MDeployer L&MDeployment L&MDLA L&M