alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: v. Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society v . John L. Graves

, et al.

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00443

- C V

Trial court case number: 1163921

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas

- and

Appellate case name: In re Houston Aeronautical Heritage Society, Inc., Relator

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 01066

- CV

Trial court case number: 1163921

Trial court: 334th District Court of Harris County, Texas

It appears to the Court―after reviewing the motions to dismiss, the motion to show

authority, the responses, and the replies―that the jurisdictional issues are intertwined with the

merits in the a bove

- referenced appeal such that the Court would be aided by full briefing.

Accordingly, the Court (1) withdraws its order abating the briefing schedule, (2) orders the

appellees’ brief filed within 30 days of the date of this order, and (3) carries the mo tions to

dismiss and motion to show authority with the case. The Court will not look favorably upon

motions to extend the deadline for filing the appellees’ brief.

The parties have also filed a motion to consolidate the above

- referenced appeal and

mandam us proceeding. That motion is denied. However, the Court will submit these two cases

on the same day to the same panel. To that end, the Court requests a response to the petition for

writ of mandamus. The deadline for filing a response to the petition for writ of mandamus is 30

days from the date of this order. Appellees’ may elect to combine their appellees’ brief and

mandamus response in a single filing. If they do so, the Court will treat the combined briefing as

having been filed in both the appeal and the mandamus proceeding.It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

A cting individually

Date: June 17, 2013
Exhibit 34.2 

**KPMG LLP**

1601 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2499 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm 

The Board of Directors

TransCentra, Inc.: 

We haveexamined management’s assessment for those customers that management has informed us have requested confirmation of compliance, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, thatTransCentra, Inc., formerly Regulus Group LLC complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d)(2)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(iv) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for remittance processing services tothose issuers of asset backed securities and servicers of loan and/or receivables portfolios that include pool assets for asset backed securities transactions (the “Platform”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011.TransCentra, Inc. has determined that the remainder of the servicing criteria are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011. Management is responsible for theCompany’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly,included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testingselected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selectedactivities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designedto determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions orany other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. 

In our opinion, management’s assessment that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2011 is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

**KPMG LLP**

February 15, 2012
February 19, 2015

To: Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation, and Energy 

Efficiency, DOE

From: Amy Shepherd, General Counsel, AHRI

Re: Ex Parte Communication

On Friday, February 13, 2015, AHRI staff met telephonically with the Department of 

Energy to discuss issues pertaining to the ongoing efficiency standards rulemaking for 

single package vertical air-conditioning and single package vertical heat pump 

(collectively, SPVU) equipment.

The purpose of the conversation was to discuss issues concerning the SPVU market and 

DOE’s determination of the equipment constituting that market as it impacts the rule and 

DOE’s supporting technical analysis.

The following individuals were present on the call:

Daniel Cohen, DOE

Johanna Hariharan, DOE

Eric Stas, DOE

Karim Amrane, AHRI

Caroline Davidson-Hood, AHRI

Amy Shepherd, AHRI

Respectfully submitted,

Amy Shepherd

General Counsel

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 18

- 00372

- CR
LISA TUIAN JEFFERSON , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 413th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. DC

- F201800364

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lisa Tuian Jefferson appealed two judgments rendered against her on two counts
in one trial court case number. The judgments were re ndered, and the sentences were
imposed, on September 17, 2018.
This appeal was dismissed on December 19, 2018 because we determined, with the
information we had available, that appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely. Although

a motion for rehearing o f the dismissal was untimely, it directed our attention to a pro se
letter filed in the days after the trial court’s judgment. Before our plenary power expired,
we vacated our December 19, 2018 judgment and withdrew our opinion of the same date

.Jefferson v. State Page 2

On Febru ary 27, 2019, we determined appellant’s pro se letter was a notice of appeal and
reinstated the appeal.

On March 7, 2019, and March 18, 2019, the trial court signed a new certificate of
right of appeal indicating that appellant waived her right to appeal a nd that because the
underlying case was a plea bargain case, appellant did not have the right to appeal. Also
on March 7, 2019, a hearing was held where appellant expressed the desire to dismiss her
appeal. 1
Because the trial court's certificate of right of appeal that Jefferson signed indicates
Jefferson has no right to appeal and has waived her right to appeal, this appeal must be

dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d) ("The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that
shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under
these rules."); Chavez v. State , 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (plea bargain);

Monreal v. St ate , 99 S.W.3d 615, 622 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (waiver of appeal). W e use Rule 2 to excuse Rule 42.2(a)’s requirement of a written motion signed by the defendant
and may dismiss the appeal because appellant plainly stated her desire on the record to

dismi ss her appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 2, 42.2(a); Hendrix v. State , 86 S.W.3d 762, 763 (Tex.
App.

— Waco 2002 , no pet. )

. For the reasons expressed herein, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice

1 On March 29, 2019, appellant also filed a motion to dismiss which was not signed by appellant but which had the referenced hearing transcript attached and relied upon it to request dismissal.Jefferson v. State Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis , and Justice Neil l A ppeal dismissed Opinion delivered and filed April 3 , 2019 Do not publish [CR25]
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2385 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2385

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic 
 acid, 7-[(5-chloro-2,6-difluoro-4-pyrimidinyl)amino]-4-hydroxy-3-[(4-
               methoxy-2-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium salt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

  Mrs. Hagan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 2-Naphthalenesulfonic 
 acid, 7-[(5-chloro-2,6-difluoro-4-pyrimidinyl)amino]-4-hydroxy-3-[(4-
               methoxy-2-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium salt.

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

SECTION 1. 2-NAPHTHALENESULFONIC ACID, 7-[(5-CHLORO-2,6-DIFLUORO-4-
              PYRIMIDINYL)AMINO]-4-HYDROXY-3-[(4-METHOXY-2-
              SULFOPHENYL)AZO]-, SODIUM SALT.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.24.89 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to 2-Naphthalenesulfonic acid, 
7-[(5-chloro-2,6-difluoro-4-pyrimidinyl)amino]-4-hydroxy-3-[(4-methoxy-
2-sulfophenyl)azo]-, sodium salt) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' 
and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2372 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2372

   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
                   fibers assembled as candle rings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To suspend temporarily the duty on artificial flowers of man-made 
                   fibers assembled as candle rings.

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

SECTION 1. ARTIFICIAL FLOWERS OF MAN-MADE FIBERS ASSEMBLED AS CANDLE 
              RINGS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Artificial flowers  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        of man-made                                                        31/2011.......
                        fibers assembled
                        as candle rings
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6702.90.35)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wayne BALLOM.

No. 88-KH-0631.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 1988.

In re Ballom, Wayne; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writ; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “I” *861Number 313-943; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number KW-8969.

Prior report: La.App., 520 So.2d 476.

Granted. The jurisdiction of the trial court was divested and that of the appellate court attached upon the entering of the order of appeal on Sept. 19, 1986. Thereafter the trial court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the previously taken appeal. La.C. Cr.P. art. 916; *State v. Arbuthnot,*367 So.2d 296 (La.1979). The trial court should prepare the record for appeal, appoint counsel if previous appellate counsel has been relieved of the duty to represent relator, and lodge the record within 60 days of the date of this order.

LEMMON, J.,

dissents from the order. However, the court’s order reinstating the appeal arguably aborts the plea bargain and leaves the prosecutor free to institute prosecution on the theft charge which the prosecutor agreed not to pursue.
#### Arthur PEOPLES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 88-939.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

*895Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Debora J. Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant and appellee agree that the trial court’s oral pronouncement of sentence, pursuant to a valid plea bargain, was not reflected in the trial court’s written order. We vacate the sentence and remand to the trial court for entry of an order that conforms to the terms of the plea bargain and the oral pronouncement. *See Williams v. State,*525 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Sentence vacated; cause remanded with directions.
#### Keary Jack KIMBLE, Petitioner, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Respondent.

No. 84SC370.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

Feb. 4, 1985.

Nicholas R. Massaro, Sp. Deputy Public Defender, Grand Junction, for petitioner.

John Milton Hutchins, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed in the above cause, 692 P.2d 1142, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that said Petition shall be, and the same hereby is, *Granted,*and that briefs shall be filed as follows:

> (a) Petitioner’s Opening Brief shall be filed within forty days from this date;

> (b) Respondent’s Answer Brief shall be filed within thirty days from receipt of the Opening Brief;

> (c) Petitioner’s Reply Brief may be filed within fourteen days from receipt of the Answer Brief.

> BY THE COURT, EN BANC, FEBRUARY 4, 1985.

The summary of the issue(s) as announced by the Court this day is as follows:

Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to order the trial court to dismiss all charges due to a violation of petitioner's right to a speedy trial under the detainer statute, section 16-14-101, -108, 8 C.R.S. (1978).
**Exhibit 32.1**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), the undersigned, Terry W. Shaver, Chief Executive Officer of Abatix Corp. (the “Company”) has executed this certification in connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the “Report”).  

The undersigned certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.  

|   | /s/ Terry W. Shaver                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                       |
|   | Terry W. Shaver                       |
|   | President and Chief Executive Officer |
|   | March 21, 2006                        |
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCWC-12-0000812 

13-MAY-2014 

10:05 AM 

SCWC-12-0000812
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

IN THE INTEREST OF V.G.
 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

(CAAP-12-0000812; FC-J NO. 0089867)
 

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
 

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant’s Application for Writ
 

of Certiorari, filed on March 29, 2014, is hereby rejected. 


DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 13, 2014.
 

Harrison L. Kiehm,

for petitioner
 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald


/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
 

/s/ Richard W. Pollack
 

/s/ Michael D. Wilson
|Exhibit 32.2
|------------

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Energy Corporation a Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Fu Xu, Chief Accounting Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.
|   



|/s/ Fu XuFu XuChief Accounting OfficerDated: October 20, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------

---
RESIDENTIAL FUNDING MORTGAGE SECURITIES I, INC.                       Page   1
FORM 10-K
PART IV, Item 5(b)
EXHIBIT #4 Properties.                                                02/28/2000

Mortgage Pool                      Number of Holders of Record

1995-QS1                                      10

1996-QS1                                      14

1996-QS2                                      16

1996-QS3                                      19

1996-QS4                                      21

1996-QS5                                      34

1996-QS6                                       6

1996-QS7                                      38

1996-QS8                                      48

1997-QS1                                      19

1997-QS10                                     15

1997-QS11                                     12

1997-QS12                                     16

1997-QS13                                     28

1997-QS2                                      36

1997-QS3                                      30

1997-QS4                                      34

1997-QS5                                      19

1997-QS6                                      15

1997-QS7                                      19

1997-QS8                                      18

1997-QS9                                      15

1998-QS1                                      15

1998-QS10                                     19

1998-QS11                                     19

1998-QS12                                     23

1998-QS13                                     12

1998-QS14                                     16

1998-QS15                                     10

1998-QS16                                     11

1998-QS17                                     26

1998-QS2                                      20

1998-QS3                                      12

1998-QS4                                      18

1998-QS5                                      15

1998-QS6                                      22

1998-QS7                                      16

1998-QS8                                      12

1998-QS9                                      23

1999-QS1                                      16

1999-QS10                                     13

1999-QS2                                      19

1999-QS3                                      18

1999-QS4                                      11

1999-QS5                                      17

1999-QS6                                      15

1999-QS7                                      14

1999-QS8                                      11

1999-QS9                                      15


<PAGE>
Exhibit 32.1
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                               SECTION 906 OF THE
                  Section 1.01   SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts Company,
Inc. (the  "Company") on form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, I
Ronald Schutte  President and 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 to the best of my knowledge, that

      (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
            Section  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
            and

      (ii)  the  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  present,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: March 28, 2005
                                           /s/ Ronald Schutte
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ronald Schutte
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts
Company,  Inc.  and will be  retained by and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.

                                       46