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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00119-CV

City of Carrollton, Texas

v.

Milan Hamrla, Petra Chudejova, 

Michael and Laura Brewer, Dalia 

Chavarria, Diane and Gene Hines, 

and Keith Effert

§

§

§

§

§

From the 442nd District Court

of Denton County (2012-70581-

431)

January 7, 2016

Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the 

trial court is reversed and we render a judgment granting the City of Carrollton’s 

plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Appellees’ claims.

It is further ordered that Appellees Milan Hamrla, Petra Chudejova, 

Michael and Laura Brewer, Dalia Chavarria, Diane and Gene Hines, and Keith 

Effert shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Sue Walker___________________

 Justice Sue Walker
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-13-00364- CV

In re eD ist Busi ness, LLC

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM TRAVIS CO UNTY
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Relator has filed a motion to dismiss its petition for writ of mandamus and states that all matters involved in the underlying dispute have been resolved. Relator further cer tifies that it has confe rre d with rea l party in interest Recorde rs.com, I nc., and that the rea l party in interest does not oppose this motion. We g rant rela tor’s motion and dismiss the p eti tion for writ of mandamus. Cf. Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a) (1) ( perta ining to dismissal of appea l).

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Dismissed on Relator’s Motion Filed: Jul y

3, 2013
October 5, 2011

MEMORANDUM

From: William H. Maxwell

EPA/SPPD/ESG (D243-01)

To: Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0234

Subject: Meeting with NERC

Attendees :

See attached.

Discussion :

A general discussion was held on NERC’s role in assuring electricity reliability, the RTO’s

comments on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard s (MATS), and how to verify information on

reliability critical units is especially in unorganized markets (see attached).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6572

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

WILLIAM JACKIE PEARSON, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Shelby. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (4:98-cr-00015-LHT-1) 

Submitted: July 21, 2009 Decided: August 12, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Aaron Edmund Michel, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

William Jackie Pearson appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for reduction of sentence, 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 

appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Pearson, No. 4:98-cr-00015-

LHT-1 (W.D.N.C. filed Mar. 26, 2009, entered Mar. 27, 2009). 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
(Reap. Dec. 9920)

#### F. B. Vandegrift & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 786752.

(Decided February 23, 1961)

*Jorclan & KUngaman*for the plaintiff.

*William K. Orriclc, Jr*,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

LawRence, Judge:

The proper dutiable value of certain metal articles is the subject of the instant appeal for a reappraisement.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been agreed that the market value or the price at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise covered by the above-enumerated reap-praisement appeal at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, was the appraised value, less the amount added to meet the advances by the appraiser in similar cases, and that there was no higher foreign value. It was further stipulated and agreed that the issue herein is the same as that involved in *Paramount Import Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States,*44 Cust. Ct. 702, Reap. Dec. 9697, the record in which case has been incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts before the court, I find and hold that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1402(d)), is the proper basis of value for the metal articles in issue and that said value is the appraised value, less the amount added to meet advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James HALL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Oct. 22, 1998.

Decided Nov. 9, 1998.

John W. Paekel, L. Roy Zipris, Ellen T. Greenlee, Philadelphia, for James Hall.

Catherine Marshall, Lawrence J. Goode, Philadelhia, for Com.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.

ZAPPALA, J., dissents.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19730]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-635-000]


ANR Pipeline Company Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; 
Notice of Application

July 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 11, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR), 500 
Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan 48243, and Transcontinental Gas 
Pipe Line Corporation (Transco); Post Office Box 1396, Houston, Texas 
77251, (jointly referred to as Applicants), filed in Docket No. CP97-
635-000, an application pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act 
for permission and approval to abandon a natural gas transportation and 
exchange service between Applicants, all as more fully set forth in the 
application on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Applicants state that they propose to abandon service authorized 
under ANR's Rate Schedule X-73 and Transco's Rate Schedule X-195. 
Applicants further state that they do not propose to abandon any 
facilities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make protest with reference 
to said application should on or before August 12, 1997, file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion 
to intervene or a protest in accordance with the requirements of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 
385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10). 
All protests filed with the Commission will considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.
    Take further notice that, pursuant to the authority contained in 
and subject to the jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission by Sections 7 and 15 of the Natural Gas Act and 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a hearing will be 
held without further notice before the Commission or its designee on 
this application if no motion to intervene is filed within the time 
required herein, if the Commission on its own review of the matter 
finds that permission and approval for the proposed abandonment are 
required by the public convenience and necessity. If a motion for leave 
to intervene is timely filed, or if the Commission on its own motion 
believes that a formal hearing is required, further notice of such 
hearing will be duly given. Under the procedure provided for, unless 
otherwise advised, it will be unnecessary for Applicants to appear or 
be represented at the hearing.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19730 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
STERITEK, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN ITS FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<CIK>   0000720831
<NAME>  STERITEK, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         212,127
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  904,425
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,895
<INVENTORY>                                    190,341
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,816,612
<PP&E>                                       3,113,956
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,057,921
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,955,033
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,105,567
<BONDS>                                        567,067
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       640,844
<OTHER-SE>                                     641,555
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,955,033
<SALES>                                      4,907,504
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,907,504
<CGS>                                        2,891,755
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,891,755
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              47,846
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (221,208)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            140,192
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (67,427)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,765
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

        

</TABLE>
No. 48917.

#### Protest 68890-K of New York Mdse. Co., Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

It was stipulated that the brushes in question are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *United States*v. *Heinrich*(26 C. C. P. A. 292, C. A. D. 30). In accordance therewith the claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1506 was sustained.
Exhibit 10.1


 


BoS (USA) INC.


565 Fifth Avenue


New York, New York 10017


 


 


 


 


                                                                                                                October
31, 2007


 


 


 


 


FirstCity Financial Corporation


6400 Imperial Drive


Waco, Texas 76712


 


Gentlemen:


 


We refer to the Subordinated Delayed Draw Credit Agreement dated as of
September 5, 2007 (the “Agreement”) among FirstCity Financial Corporation (the “Borrower”),
the financial institutions which are parties to the Agreement (the “Lenders”)
and BoS (USA) Inc., as agent (the “Agent”).


The Agent and the Borrower hereby agree and confirm that (1) the date
in the introductory paragraph of Section 6 of the Agreement is amended to be
November 16, 2007 and (2) Section 4.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to
provide that the Commitment Commission (as defined in such Section 4.1) shall
be payable for the period commencing on the date of this letter (October 31,
2007) to and including the Maturity Date (as defined in the Agreement), the
first such payment to be due and payable on December 26, 2007 (for the full
period from the date of this letter to December 26, 2007).


Except as expressly amended hereby, the Agreement remains in full force
and effect in accordance with its terms.


Please sign below to confirm the terms of this letter, which may be
executed in counterparts, which when taken together shall constitute one and
the same instrument.  This letter shall
be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of New
York without reference to choice of law doctrine that would result in the
application of the laws of another jurisdiction.  The execution and delivery of this letter
shall not obligate the Agent to agree to any further amendments, waivers or
consents.


 


 

















 


This letter may be executed in counterparts, which when taken together
shall constitute one and the same instrument.


	
   

  	
  Very truly yours,

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  BoS (USA) Inc.

  
	
   

  	
  Individually and as Agent

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  
				



 


AGREED:


FIRSTCITY FINANCIAL CORPORATION


 


	
  By:

  	
   

  	
   

  	 

	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


 


 


2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20062]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS-50581E; FRL-5733-5]


Revocation of Significant New Use Rule for Certain Chemical 
Substances; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a document (FR Doc. 97-17178) in the Federal 
Register of July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35690) revoking two significant new use 
rules (SNUR). That document inadvertently contained an incorrect CFR 
section number. EPA intended to revoke the SNURs as stated in the 
preamble of the proposed revocation for these two substances (62 FR 
6160, February 11, 1997) (FRL-5580-8). This action is necessary so that 
the correct SNURs are removed from part 721. Because this is a 
nonsubstantive change, notice and public comment are not required.

DATES: This document is effective on August 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Hazen, Director, Environmental 
Assistance Division (TS-799), Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Room E-543A, 401 M St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 554-1404; TDD: (202) 554-0551; 
e-mail: TSCA-H<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d0bfa4bcb9beb590b5a0b1bdb1b9bcfeb5a0b1feb7bfa6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d0bfa4bcb9beb590b5a0b1bdb1b9bcfeb5a0b1feb7bfa6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a document (FR Doc. 97-17178) in 
the Federal Register of July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35690) (FRL-5715-3) 
inadvertently removing Sec. 721.3020. This document correctly removes 
Sec. 721.3060.
    On page 35691, in the first column, amendatory item 2 should read: 
``2. By removing Sec. 721.3060.''

    Dated: July 22, 1997.

Charles M. Auer,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics.
[FR Doc. 97-20062 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    DIRECT RESPONSE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
                  OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

I, T. Randolph Catanese certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-QSB of Direct Response
Financial Services, Inc.;

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;

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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures , as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business
issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the small
business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):

a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the small
business issuer's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting.

June 14, 2005


/s/ T. Randolph Catanese
----------------------------------
Name: T. Randolph Catanese
Title: Chief Executive Officer
and Acting Chief Financial Officer
No. 46452.

#### Protest 17827-K of Greenberg & Josefsberg (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the articles are usual containers. of stationery sets and are similar to those the subject of Abstract 39013. The protest was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
        (SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,
                               UNITED STATES CODE)

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a)
and b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), I, Patrick
D. O'Brien, Chief Executive Officer of American Oil & Gas, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

     1) the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 for the quarterly
period ending June 30, 2003 (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 results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 19, 2003

/s/ Patrick D. O'Brien
----------------------
Patrick O'Brien
Chief Executive Officer




                                       20
Exhibit 32.2

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. Section 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of **FirstBingo.com** (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended **June 30, 2005** as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Thomas M. Sheppard, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 22nd day of August, 2005.

 
/s/ Thomas M. Sheppard 
Thomas M. Sheppard  
Chief Executive Officer
Before the Second Division,

October 15, 1943

No. 48879.

#### Protest 75453-K of B. R. Anderson & Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

From an inspection of a representative sample^ marked exhibit 1, it was found to consist of the usual type of automobile road map. Though it has some additional text, this text was found not to be of such nature as to be covered by the Canadian Trade-Agreement (T. D. 49752), which is one of the claims in the protest. As the *eo nomine*provision for maps in paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753 was found to be more specific than that for articles lithographically printed (paragraph 1406), and that claim being conceded by the Government in its brief, the court held the maps dutiable at 20 percent under paragraph 1410 and T. D. 49753, as claimed. *Sheldon*v. *United States*(4 Ct. Cust. Appls. 42, T. D. 33265) noted.