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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00320-CR

NO. 02-14-00321-CR

NO. 02-14-00322-CR

NO. 02-14-00323-CR

ERIK WHITE APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1316391D, 1330277D, 1330414D, 1331423D

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

ORDER

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

We have considered the “State’s First Motion For Extension Of Time To

File Its Brief On Appeal.”

The motion is GRANTED. The State’s brief is ordered due Wednesday,

May 06, 2015.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the

attorneys of record.

DATED April 7, 2015.

PER CURIAM

FILE COPY
SurfMoore, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

# FILED MAR - 

## 92010 Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts

v. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 

# 1(; (j;j8? U.S. Justice Dep't et aI., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on its initial review ofplaintiffs pro se complaint and application for leave to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the informapauperis application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading requirements ofRule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) ofthe Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure requires complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement ofthe grounds for the court'sjurisdiction [and] (2) a short and plain statement ofthe claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice ofthe claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine ofresjudicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).Plaintiff, a resident ofJackson, Mississippi, sues the Department ofJustice, the States of Mississippi and California and an individual, Charles Moore, Jr., for civil damages authorized by 18 U.S.C. 

### § 2520, which states: Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communicationis intercepted, disclosed, orintentionallyused inviolation ofthis chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such reliefas may be appropriate. 18 U.S.C. 

### § 2520(a). Demanding $100 million, plaintiffalleges only that "the Defendant intentional [sic] intruded on plaintiffseclusion and is [illegible] for relieffor offensive & objectionable, and tortious intrusion ofPrivacy Act 1871." Compi. at 1. The statute precludes plaintiffs recovery ofdamages from the United States and plaintiffhas not stated sufficient facts to provide adequate notice ofa claim against the remaining defendants. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Date: February**~,** 2010

2
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 0 7 /25 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR– 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Colorado Sustainability Collaborative Conference Call held on 06/26 /2014 **SUMMARY :**  Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator, presented information on the proposed Clean Power Plan for E xisting Power Plants via teleconference during the Colorado Sustainability Collaborative’s monthly conference call on 06/26 /2014
. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  **Region 8** Laura Farris **External Stakeholders** Members of Colorado Sustainability Collaborative **ATTACHMENTS** Clean Power Plan PowerPoint Presentation.
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE**


**SARBANES-OXLEY
      ACT OF 2002**




Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Lightstone Value Plus Real Estate Investment
      Trust, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the
      Board of Directors of the Company, 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 operations of the Company.




/s/
      David
      Lichtenstein


David
      Lichtenstein


Chairman,
      President, and Chief Executive Officer


(Principal
      Executive Officer)


November
      4, 2005
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

November 3, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 132273 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr.

_____________ _______________ _____________ Stephen J. Markman, Justices IN RE JACOB BENJAMIN JACKSON and SAMANTHA MARIN JACKSON, Minors.

_____________ _______________ _____________
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, f/k/a FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY, Petitioner-Appellee,

v SC: 132273 COA: 267963 Oakland CC

TRACI BETH JACKSON, Respondent-Appellant, Family Division: 04-693264-NA

and

PAUL D. JACKSON, Respondent.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal th e September 21, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.

s1031 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 3, 2006

Clerk
ELECTRONIC RECORD

q/fw¥

COA# 01-12-01144-CR OFFENSE: 22.02 (Aggravated Assault)

Jay Scott Garrison, Jr. v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 178th District Court

DATE: 06/26/2014 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1278458

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Jay Scott Garrison, Jr. v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

PfiO SB.

CCA#: 9/S-0

Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: *J0Q&yidl?K / f ^H

JUDGE: fj\ CjAAsUt^-,

CC4 /•

%££j^£b_£^_

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Mark Lana, the President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director of HS3 Technologies, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)           the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of HS3 Technologies, Inc. for the interim period ended March 31, 2007 (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 HS3 Technologies, Inc.

Dated  May 15, 2007

/s/ Mark Lana                                    

Mark Lana 

President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial

Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
AMS All Purpose Egg Mix Contractor Microbial Performance - Fiscal Year: 20211/,2/

Standard Plate Count3/ Total Coliforms4/ Salmonella5/

Contractor

# Lots Produced 

(% of Total)

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit

# Exceeding 

Critical Limit

% Exceeding 

Critical Limit # Positive % Positive

C1 162 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 162 (100.0) 0 0 0 0 0 0

1/A full description of the all purpose egg mix purchase program specification is available at https://www.ams.usda.gov/selling-food/product-specs#Eggs. 2/Production Dates: October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. 3/Standard Plate Count Critical Limit: 1,000 CFU/g.

4/Total Coliforms Critical Limit: 10 CFU/g.

5/Salmonella Critical Limit: Positive (+) Result / 25g.
WEST VIRGINIA 

SECRETARY OF STATE 

NATALIE E. TENNANT 

Do Not Mark In This Box 

F- 1 !. __ EO 

2012 11A Y - I PM 2: 4 5 

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISION 

Form #6 ----------------------------'--------------

NOTICE OF FINAL FILING AND ADOPTION OF A LEGISLATIVE RULE AUTHORIZED 

BY THE WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE 

AGENCY: WV Dept. of Environmental Protection - Div. of Air Quality TITLE NUMBER: 45 

AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING RULE: YES ...K_ NOIF YES, SERIES NUMBER OF RULE BEING AMENDED: 45CSR1

4 

TITLE OF RULE BEING AMENDED: Permits for Construction & Major Modification of 

Major Stationary Sources for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration of Air Quality 

IF NO, SERIES NUMBER OF RULE BEING PROPOSED: ___ _ 

TITLE OF RULE BEING PROPOSED: _______________ _ 

THE ABOVE RULE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. 

AUTHORIZATION IS CITED IN (house or senate bill number) ____ ...::::S=B-=2=53:::.._ ___ _ 

SECTION _ __;;:;,§_64_-3_-_1 (-'-'d)..__ _____ , PASSED ON __ ......:M=ar=ch,;;_;3;;.;:0.!.,.;, 2=0:..=.. 1=----- 2

THIS RULE IS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. THIS RULE BECOMES EFFECTIVE ON THE 

FOLLOWING DATE: June 1, 2012
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7424

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MAJOR BOYD WHITLEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

Senior District Judge. (1:03-cr-00445-JAB-1; 1:12-cv-00067-JABJLW)

Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 8, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Major Boyd Whitley, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Francis Joseph, 

Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Terri-Lei O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, 

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Major Boyd Whitley seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Whitley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
* The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States Distri ct Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0204p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

_________________
J UAN M ARTINEZ -M ARROQUIN , Petitioner,

v. A LBERTO R. G ONZALES , Attorney General, Respondent. X - - - -> , - - N No. 06-4380

Filed: June 4, 2007 Before: GIBBONS and COOK, Circu it Judges; CLELAND, District Judge. *

_________________ ORDER

_________________ The petitioner seeks judicial review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings and rescind an immigration judge’s in absentia order of removal. The petitioner’s proof brief was filed on March 26, 2007. The respondent now moves to remand this case to the BIA to consider the issue of whether the petitioner carried his burden to demonstrate that the in abse ntia order of removal should be rescinded pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii) b ecause he did not receive notice of the removal hearing. The petitioner does not oppose the motion. The effect of a remand is to render the BIA’s decision nonfinal “and hence not judicially reviewable.” Ren v. Gonzales , 440 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir. 2006). A remand will not, however, result in the loss of the petitioner’s right to judicial review. See Lopez-Ruiz v. Ashcroft , 298 F.3d 886, 887 (9th Cir. 2002). In view of the foregoing circumstances, we find the respondent’s motion to be well taken. The petitioner is cautioned that if the BIA doe s not rule in his favor, a new timely petition for review must be filed. The motion for remand is GRANTED. ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT /s/ Leonard Green

___________________________________ Clerk

1
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this amendment to the Quarterly Report of CB Richard Ellis Realty Trust (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jack A. Cuneo, 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:

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/ JACK A. CUNEOJack A. CuneoPresident and Chief Executive Officer


December 3, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9264]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Proposed Leasehold Surrender Interest Guide

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on its 
proposed Leasehold Surrender Interest (LSI) Guide. The proposed LSI 
Guide discusses methodologies for estimating the LSI value of capital 
improvements constructed, installed or acquired by a concessioner 
pursuant to the terms of a NPS concession contract.

DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before May 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the proposed LSI Guide are available for review or 
download at http://concessions.nps.gov/index.htm. Send comments to Ms. 
Jo A. Pendry, Chief, Commercial Services Program, National Park 
Service, 1201 Eye Street NW., 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 or via 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#78121727081d161c0a013816080b561f170e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1bbbe8ea1b4bfb5a3a891bfa1a2ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a> or via fax at 202/371-2090.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Harvey, Asset Management 
Branch Chief, 202-513-7150.
    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or 
other identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that 
your entire comment--including your personal identifying information--
may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in 
your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from 
public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to the NPS Concessions Management 
Improvement Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-391; 36 CFR part 51), the proposed 
LSI Guide provides information regarding LSI terms and concepts and 
discusses the various types of capital improvements eligible for LSI, 
including a table listing types of equipment and materials used in real 
property improvements that may or may not be classified as fixtures. 
The proposed LSI Guide also includes discussion of how to estimate LSI 
values, including the effects of inflation and depreciation. The 
proposed LSI Guide is not intended to describe all LSI requirements or 
circumstances. The proposed LSI Guide does not adopt requirements or 
policy for the National Park Service or National Park Service 
concessioners.

    Dated: March 7, 2012.
Jo A. Pendry,
Chief, Commercial Services Program.
[FR Doc. 2012-9264 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 10.61 


 


AMENDMENT No. 1


TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


 


This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment”)
to the Employment Agreement dated November 18, 2021 (the ”Agreement”) is made and entered into as of June 9,
2022 and effective as of June 1, 2022, by and between La Rosa Holdings Corp., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"),
and Mark Gracy, an individual ("Executive"). Each of the Company and Executive is a “Party” to this
Amendment and the Company and Executive, collectively, the “Parties” hereto.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive entered into the Agreement on November 18, 2021.


 


WHEREAS, the Company and
the Executive desire to amend the Agreement to set forth additional terms, conditions and obligations of the Parties with respect
to the Executive’s employment in the Company.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and
in consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:


 


		1.	Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety, and in its place the following is inserted:




 


“Salary. During the Term of this Agreement, the Company agrees to pay the Executive an annual salary of $249,000.00
(the “Salary”). The Salary shall increase to the greater of: (i) automatically, after the closing date of the Company’s
initial public offering, to the base salary being paid to the highest paid “C” level executive of the Company other
than the Chief Executive Officer, or (ii) the base salary approved by the Board of Directors or its Compensation Committee (if
such Committee has the power to set salaries without the need for Board approval) on the second anniversary of the Effective Date
and on each subsequent anniversary, without the need for action by either party hereto. The Salary shall be payable in accordance
with the Company's regular payroll schedule and will be subject to payroll taxes and other customary payroll deductions.”


 


		2.	Except as set forth above, all of the terms, conditions and provisions of the Agreement shall be
and remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the
Agreement. This Amendment shall be effective on the date set forth above.



 


[SIGNATURE PAGE TO THE AMENDMENT FOLLOWS]


 




     


     


    







  


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto
have caused this Amendment to be executed on the date first written above.


 


	“COMPANY”	 	 
	LA ROSA HOLDINGS CORP.	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Joseph La Rosa	 	 
	Signature	 	 
	 	 	 
	Joseph La Rosa	 	 
	Print Name	 	 
	 	 	 
	Chief Executive Officer	 	 
	Title	 	 


 


	 	“EXECUTIVE”
	 	MARK GRACY
	 	 
	 	/s/ Mark Gracy
	 	Executive’s Signature
Agencies | Online Services | Help State Search: GO

Page Tools GO

Site Map

Search DEP GO 

DEP Home | Contact Us | Subject Index | Can't Find It | About DEP Friday, October 5, 2007

WASTE DISCHARGE 

SPECIAL TOPICS 

Waste Discharge 

Special Topics 

Home 

Agriculture 

GIP 

Dental Amalgam 

New Law 

Dentists 

Vendors 

Ships & Boats 

Water Toxics Rule 

West Nile Virus 

L&W Home > Permits & Standards > Waste Discharge > Special Topics > Dental 

Amalgam 

Dental Amalgam 

Separator 

Systems 

New Law. Interested 

in the new amalgam 

separator law? 

Dentists. What do you 

have to do to comply 

with the new law? 

Separator Vendors. 

Does your equipment 

meet the necessary 

requirements? 

 

 

Maine.gov | DEP Home | Land & Water Home | Site Policies | L&W Webmaster 

Copyright © 2005 All rights reserved.

Dental Amalgam Separator Systems, Maine Department of Environmental Protection Page 1 of 1

http://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/topic/amalgamseparator/index.htm 10/5/2007
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A0 45 9 . J OSEPH C. HOLMES v . THE STATE.

Th i s cas e was d o ck et ed b y t h is Co urt o n No v em b er 5

, 2 0 15

, an d ap p el l an t ’ s

b ri ef an d en u m erat i o ns of erro r were d u e No v em b er 2 5

, 2 01 5

. As o f th e d at e o f t h i s

o rd er, ap p el l an t s t i l l h as n o t fi l ed a b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f e r r o rs an d h as n ot

req u es t ed an ex t en si o n o f t i m e i n wh i ch t o d o s o. Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s ap p eal is h ereb y

DISM ISSED as ab an d on ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru les 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti fy t h a t t h e a b o v e is a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d th e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 03/11/2016 March 11, 2016
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EJ MADISON, LLC., A TEXAS

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

,

Appellant

,

v.

PRO

- TECH DIESEL, INC.,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 229

- C V

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 5

- DCV2479 )

O R D E R

T he Court received and filed the supplemental clerk’s record as requested in its order

issued February 8 , 201 8

. The appeal is therefore reinstated , and the Appellant’s brief is now due

April 20 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st da y of March , 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.