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

San Antonio, Texas

November 24, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00350

- CV

Jack RETTIG

, Appellant

v.

Ronald E. BRUNO

, Christopher Garcia, Sergio Lopez, Patrick G. Mendoza,

and Troy J. Williams, Appellee s

From the 111th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVQ000699 D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellee Patrick G. Mendoza has filed a notice stating that he is in bankruptcy. The notice states that the bankruptcy proceeding is pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for

the Western District of Texas in San Antonio , under Case No. 15

- 52801

- cag , styled In re Patrick
G. Mendoza and Gloria C. Mendoza . The notice contains an authenticated copy of the page[s] of the bankruptcy petition showing that the petition was filed on November 16, 2015

. Accordingly, the appeal and all time periods are stayed from the date the bankruptcy petition was

filed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 8.2.

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is ABATED . For administrative purposes, the appeal will be treated as a closed case , unless and until it is reinstated in accordance with Rule 8.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 24th day of November, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
|Household Finance Corporation                                          |                    
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
|Household Consumer Loan Corporation                                    |                    
|Household Consumer Loan Trust 1995-1                                   | Total 2001 Payments
|**********************************************************************
|                                                                       |                    
|Original Principal Class A                                             | 750,000,000.00     
|Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                                        | 750,000.00         
|Original Principal Class B                                             | 172,196,000.00     
|Number of Class B Bond (000's)                                         | 172,196.00         
|Original Principal Certificate                                         | 30,304,000.00      
|Number of Certificate Bond (000's)                                     | 30,304.00          
|                                                                       |                    
|Class A  Principal Distribution                                        |                    
|Class A  Interest Distribution                                         |                    
|                                                                       |                    
|Class B  Principal Distribution                                        |                    
|Class B  Interest Distribution                                         |                    
|                                                                       |                    
|Certificates  Principal Distribution                                   | 2,422,849.33       
|Certificates  Interest Distribution                                    |                    
|                                                                       |
2 Attachments 

Cleve: 

 

At our December 9 meeting, you asked for a walkthrough of the method used to calculate the NO2 daily profiles. We are providing the 

following clarifying information and the attached files to help your review. 

 

The attached workbook NO2OzoneRawdata.xls contains the monitoring data provided to us by the Air District (sheet1) 

 

On sheet 2, the maximum values for each clock hour in January, 2004, are reported in ppm (Column D). They are converted to ug/cu m 

(Column E). The results are compared to the values used in the postprocessor (Column F). The values in Column F come from the 

postprocessor input file NO2MTH04.txt which was included on the disk containing the PSD supplemental modeling files 

(Operation\Refined\1HRNO2\Postfile\Startup\ NO2MTH04.txt), and is also attached for your reference. 

 

As you can see, the values used in the compliance demonstration match the values in the raw data file. You can use the technique 

described above to audit any of the daily profiles used in the analysis. 

 

Please let me know if you have any questions. 

 

--Steve Hill 

Responses to EPA requests 

Steve Hill 

to: 

Cleveland Holladay 

12/29/2011 11:29 AM 

Cc: 

Gary Rubenstein, "W. David Jenkins (djenkins@apexpowergroup.com)", "Fitzgerald, Maggie", "McKinsey, John A."

Hide Details 

From: Steve Hill <SHill@sierraresearch.com>

To: Cleveland Holladay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: Gary Rubenstein <GRubenstein@sierraresearch.com>, "W. David Jenkins (djenkins@apexpowergroup.com)" 

<djenkins@apexpowergroup.com>, "Fitzgerald, Maggie" <maggie.fitzgerald@urs.com>, "McKinsey, John A." 

<JAMCKINSEY@stoel.com>

NO2OzoneRawdata.xlsx NO2MTH04.txt

Page 1 of 1

file://C:\Documents and Settings\chollada\Local Settings\Temp\notesDF63F8\~web1781.h... 3/25/2012
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1749 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1749

 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or 
 use of cell phones and similar wireless devices by Federal prisoners.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 5, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein (for herself and Mr. Grassley) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the possession or 
 use of cell phones and similar wireless devices by Federal prisoners.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cell Phone Contraband Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. WIRELESS DEVICES IN PRISON.

    Section 1971 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or (d)(1)(E)'' 
                and inserting ``, (d)(1)(E), or (d)(1)(F)''; and
                    (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``(d)(1)(F)'' and 
                inserting ``(d)(1)(G)''; and
            (2) in subsection (d)(1)--
                    (A) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as 
                subparagraph (G); and
                    (C) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the 
                following:
                    ``(F) a phone or other device used by a user of 
                commercial mobile service (as defined in section 332(d) 
                of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d))) 
                in connection with such service; and''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51233 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGEL SOLORZANO-PALMAS, also known as Angel Solorzano, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-03-CR-883-ALL-PRM

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Angel Solorzano-Palmas appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Solorzano-Palmas complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) based on a prior conviction. He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional. Solorzano-Palmas thus contends that hisNo. 03-51233 -2- sentence should not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a).
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Solorzano-Palmas acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
#### Luis Garcia, Appellant, v City of New York, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered November 30, 1989, based upon a jury verdict of $20,000, with culpability apportioned 60% against plaintiff and 40% against defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured when he stepped into an empty sidewalk tree well. It was still daylight (7 o’clock on a July evening), and there is no indication that the hazard had been *176concealed in any way. Plaintiff admitted that his attention had been distracted at the time by an altercation taking place across the street. The jury had a right to consider all factors *(Moran v City of New York,*153 AD2d 607), including the pedestrian’s disregard of a hazard that could have been avoided by the reasonable exercise of prudence and caution *(McFarlane v City of Niagara Falls,*247 NY 340, 347).

Plaintiff’s counsel is permitted, in summation, to suggest to the jury an amount believed to be appropriate compensation for the injury *(Tate v Colabello,*58 NY2d 84), and in some cases is allowed to state the amount demanded in a negligence complaint. This general rule does not pertain in an action against a municipal corporation, for the simple reason that CPLR 3017 (c) prohibits an ad damnum clause in such a complaint in the first place. Even the suggestion of a reasonable amount has met with mixed approbation in departments of the Appellate Division, in analogous medical malpractice situations *(see, McDougald v Garber,*73 NY2d 246, 258, n). Here, the trial court adopted the more liberal approach of permitting plaintiff to suggest a reasonable figure to the jury, but correctly denied the right to make any reference to the level of damages demanded in the pleadings, in contravention of CPLR 3017 (c).

We find the jury’s total award of damages, and its apportionment of culpability, to have been adequately supported in the record. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### U.S. Customs and Border Protection

# AGENCY:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

# ACTION:

Notice of approval of VIP Chemical, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, VIP Chemical, Inc., 4026 FM 1694, Robstown, TX 78310, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquires regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *cbp.labhq@dhs.gov.*                         Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories.                    

*http://cbp.gov/​linkhandler/​cgov/​trade/​automated/​labs_​scientific_​svcs/​commercial_​gaugers/​gaulist.ctt/​gaulist.pdf*

# DATES:

The approval of VIP Chemical, Inc., as commercial gauger became effective on June 16, 2011. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2014.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonathan McGrath, Laboratories and Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060.

      ( print page 13349)    
Dated: February 28, 2012.

Ira S. Reese,

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.

[FR Doc. 2012-5353 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 16 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 16

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the temporary 
  suspension of waiver authority for participation in the Visa Waiver 
                    Program and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2010

 Mr. Voinovich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to remove the temporary 
  suspension of waiver authority for participation in the Visa Waiver 
                    Program and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Visa Waiver Program Expansion Act of 
2010''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF WAIVER AUTHORITY FOR 
              PARTICIPATION IN THE VISA WAIVER PROGRAM.

    Section 217(c)(8)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1187(c)(8)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking clause (iii); and
            (2) by redesignating clause (iv) as clause (iii).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit31.2****Certification**I, Romolo Santarosa certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FCB Bancorp for the quarterly periodended  September 30, 2005; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation and;  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date:November 11, 2005       /s/ Romolo Santarosa     Romolo Santarosa    Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre Morales, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the County Court, Suffolk County (Namm, J.), dated June 18, 1990, which denied his motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 (1), to vacate two sentences of the same court, both imposed May 19, 1986, upon his conviction of burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 1865/85 and burglary in the second degree (two counts) under Indictment No. 1904/85, upon his pleas of guilty.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

On this appeal from an order denying the defendant’s post-judgment motion to vacate his sentences, the defendant again argues that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender, an issue previously found by this court to have been unpreserved for appellate review upon the defendant’s direct appeal from his sentences *(see, People v Morales,*143 AD2d 949).

In any event, the County Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate his sentences on the basis, *inter alia,*of waiver *(see, People v Andre,*132 AD2d 560). We further note that the motion could have been denied pursuant to CPL 440.20 (2) *(cf., People v Chapman,*115 AD2d 911). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

DONALD J. KALIL, executor of the Estate of James Kalil, Sr., and trustee of the James Kalil, Sr. Revocable

Trust

,

Petitioner Below

, Appellant,

v.

JAMES P. KALIL, JANICE KETCHAM, and JACQUELINE

KALIL

,

Respondent s Below

, Appellee s

. § § No. 241 , 2019 § § § § Court Below

– Court of Chancery § of the State of Delaware § § Case No. 11047 VCZ § § § § § § §

Submitted: October 25 , 201 9
Decided: January 14 , 2020

Before VALIHURA

, VAUGHN , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal, we find

it evident that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of

the Court of Chancery’s June 11 , 2019 order, which overru led the petitioner’s and

respondents’ objections to the Master’s Final Report and adopted the well

- reasoned

Master’s Final Report dated February 7, 2018 in its entirety.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the Court

of Chancery is AFF IRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L . V

alihura
Justice