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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-13-00208-CV

In the ESTATE OF William Stacy LONGSTRETH, Deceased

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Gillespie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13310

Honorable N. Keith Williams, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 17, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

On April 11, 2013, appellant Nan J. Ginger filed a document entitled “Withdrawal of 

Notice of Appeal.” We construe this document as a motion to dismiss the appeal. We grant the 

motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We order all costs assessed against appellant. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.1(d)(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: February 8, 2013 |                                                |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|                   | /s/ A. Brian Davis                                  |
|                   | A. Brian Davis                                      |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer and Vice President, Finance |
|                   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)        |

----
# SPREADING WINGS S100 **0+ SPECS** 

 **Home**  **Products**  **Spreading Wings S1000+**  **Specs** 

## FRAME **Diagonal Wheelbase 1045mm**  **Frame Arm Length 386mm**  **Frame Arm Weight (Including Motor, ESC, Propeller )**  **325g Center Frame Diameter**  **337mm Center Frame Weight (with Landing Gear Mounting Base, Servos)**  **1520g Landing Gear Size**  **460mm(Length)×511mm(Width)×305mm(Height)** 

## ESC **Working Current**  **40A Working Voltage**  **6S LiPo Signal Frequency**  **30Hz ~ 450Hz Drive PWM Frequency**  **8KHz Weight(with Radiators)**  **35g** 

## FLIGHT PARAMETERS **Tak eoff Weight**  **6.0Kg ~ 11.0Kg Total Weight**  **4.4Kg Power Battery**  **LiPo (6S,10000mAh~20000mAh,15C(Min)) Max Power**  **Consumption 4000W**  **Hover Power Consumption 1500W (@9.5Kg Takeoff Weight)** **Hover Time 15min (@15000mAh & 9.5Kg Takeoff Weight)** 

**Working Environment Temperature -**  **10 °C ~ +40 °C** 

## MOTOR **Stator Size 41×14mm**  **KV 400rpm/V**  **Max Power 500W**  **Weight(with Cooling Fan) 158g**  

## FOLDABLE PROPELLER ( **1552/1552R) Material**  **High strength performance engineered plastics Size**  **15×5.2inch Weight**  **13g** 

## GAIN VALUE SETTINGS **For A2 flight controller Basic: Roll 120%, Pitch 120%, Yaw 120%**  **Attitude: Roll 170%, Pitch 170%, Vertical 120% For WooKong** **- M flight controller**  **Basic: Roll 130%, Pitch 130%, Yaw 120% Attitude: Roll 180%, Pitch 180%, Vertical 120%**  

# SPREADING WINGS S100 **0+ DOWNLOADS** 

 **Home**  **Products**  **Spreading Wings S1000+**  **Dow nloads**  

## NEWEST **S1000+ Release Notes**

**2014 -**  **10 -**  **23 zip**  **pdf**

 **S1000+ User Manual v1.2 2014**  **- 12**  **- 18**  **zip pdf**  *** Important Notice: As DJI Innovations has no control over use, setup, final assembly, modification (including use of non**  **- specified DJI parts i.e. motors, ESCs,**  **propellers, etc.) or m isuse, no liability shall be assumed nor accepted for any resulting damage or injury. By the act of use, setup or assembly, t** **he user accepts all resulting liability.**  **You will need Adobe Reader**  **to rea d PDF documents.**  *** Go to DJI Wiki for release history!**
ELECTRONIC RECORD

05-12-00095-CR RESISTING ARREST

05-12-00096-CR INDECENT EXPOSURE

COA # 05-12-00097-CR OFFENSE: POSS OF INHALANT

STYLE: nix,thomaslee COUNTY: Collin

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: County Court at Law No 3

DATE: 08/05/2014

003-82321-10, 00382323-10 & 003-

Publish:NO TCCASE#: 82324-10

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: NIX, THOMAS LEE v.

PfiO <£ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: flh^/20^

JUDGE: /£c CouUs~~>

&&o 5* PETTITON

FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW

IS 5fA>)fA

DATE tk/ito ?.R xa/r

^JUDGE

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PRO <>£

PC:.

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS: CtAAff^h -KM*** 2% &¥?

JUDGE: %1 &"^-

15 RfFuf& ELECTRONIC RECORD
DISTRIC T ATTORNEY' S OFFIC E 

as-" & 424" .Tadlcial District s 

COUNTIE S O F 

BI.AMCO • BUBNSr r • IXAK O * SA N SAB A 

Wiley B. McAfee 

District Attorney 

April 9, 2014 

Mr. Jeffery D. Kyle 

Clerk of Court of Appea 

P. O. Box 12457 

Austin, TX 78711 

Re: Case No. 03-15-

Appeal from Caujie 

d0212-CR; Michael Jude Pirie v. The State of Texas 

No. 40555 in the 33rd District Court of Burnet County 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

Please accept thi 

Texas, Appellee, in the 

15 letter as our designation of Lead Counsel for the State of 

^bove described case. Lead Counsel for this case is: 

Gary W. Bunyard 

Assistant District Attorney 

P.O. Box 725 

Llano, TX 78643 

(325) 247-5755 (voice) 

(325) 247-5274 

g.bunyard@co. 

Texas State Bar 

(rax) 

.tx.us 

. 03353500 

.llano 

Mo 

Sincerely, 

cc: Mr. Nathan Kight 

1008 N. Water 

Burnet, TX 78611 

Michael Jude Pirie 

Inmate #019826510 

Reverend C.A. Holliday 

295 IH-45 North, 

•yard 

Assistant District Attorney 

Transfer Facility 

Huntsville, TX 77320 

811 Berry Street-RO Box 725 • Uano» Texas 78843 • 325-247-5755 • Fax ^247-527 4 

ACCEPTED

03-15-00212-CR

4830911

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/9/2015 3:31:24 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/9/2015 3:31:24 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 23754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9523]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on March 27, 2012, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Media Workflow 
Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Media-Alliance, Brescia, SPAIN; and SuperSport, Randburg, 
Johannesburg, SOUTH AFRICA, have been added as parties to this venture.
    Also, MBC Group, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; National 
Geographical-Intelligence Agency, Herndon, VA; SAIC, McLean, VA; 
Toshiba, Wayne, NJ; John Footen (individual member), Lansdowne, VA; 
Robert Gummesson (individual member), London, UNITED KINGDOM; Gwynne 
McConkey (individual member), Leonia, NJ; and Salvador Villa Vidaler, 
Madrid, SPAIN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 21, 
2011. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on January 20, 2012 (77 FR 3007).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-9523 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
null

2015-04-09

620.6251

eng - Argued: 2015-04-09. Docket number: 5-12-0478
July 2011

FOOD DEFENSE SYSTEM SURVEY

Food Defense questions listed below are to be evaluated at the processing and offsite warehousing 

facilities using the following key and column below: (P) Processing Facility (B) Both Processing and 

Warehousing Facility. Numbers 1-11 are applicable if evaluating the (W) Warehousing Facility only. 

YES NO RATING

1. B Does management have a Food Defense Plan that is implemented, and reassessed 

by management to assure it remains relevant to the operation?

2. B

Does the Food Defense Plan address preventive measures relative to product 

tampering and deliberate contamination at the facility and during transport in 

commerce?

3. B Do written defense practices list management contacts and procedures for 

notifying appropriate authorities in the case of an emergency or security issue?

4. B Do company personnel hiring practices include screening all potential 

employees?

5. B After hiring, are photo identification or other measures employed to restrict 

access to the facility?

6. B Have employees received training in Food Defense, and is the Food Defense 

training documented?

7. B

Do supplier delivery personnel, contract workers, and visitors have restricted 

access to vulnerable product areas of the facility and are they accompanied by a 

company representative?

8. B Are the outside premises of the facility secure with limited access to vulnerable 

areas?

9. B Are the grounds and facility monitored for suspicious activity and unauthorized 

entry?

10. B Are “No Trespassing” signs visible along the perimeter of the facility, or are 

other measures being taken to secure and limit access to vulnerable areas?

11. B

Are assurances concerning food defense practices provided by suppliers of direct 

or indirect ingredients, product and equipment cleaning and sanitizing 

compounds, and packaging materials? This may include the use of tamper 

evident packaging for raw materials, sealing of trailers, and locking of bulk 

ingredient receiving ports.

12. P

Is the security of water and utilities within the facility’s control addressed in the 

Food Security Plan, and does the plan define limited access by designated 

company representatives?

13. P

Does the processing plant have a manufacturer processor registration number 

(MPN), a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food facility registration number 

issued to the manufacturer/processor by FDA?

DEFICIENCIES

ITEM

NUMBER

DESCRIPTION PROPOSED

CORRECTIVE

ACTION DATE

DATE

CORRECTED
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted September 25, 2006

Decided October 20, 2006

Before

Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

Hon. ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge

ROBERTO CERVANTES-MANZO, 

Petitioner,

No. 06-2163 v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of 

an Order of the Board 

of Immigration 

Appeals.

No. A12-642-275

Order

Roberto Cervantes-Manzo was ordered removed from the United 

States to his native Mexico because of his multiple felony 

convictions. More than six years ago, we dismissed his petition 

for review of that removal order, because his convictions 

qualify as "aggravated felonies" and prevent judicial review. 8 

U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C).

After we dismissed his petition, Cervantes-Manzo moved to 

reopen the administrative proceeding so that he could apply for 

discretionary relief. That request was granted, and a hearing 

was scheduled before an immigration judge. At the request of 

Cervantes-Manzo, the hearing was delayed repeatedly and finally 

set for October 11, 2005. When that time came, everyone except 

Cervantes-Manzo was present. The immigration judge waited 75 

UNPUBLISHED ORDER

Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53
No. 06-2163 Page 2

minutes, and when Cervantes-Manzo still had not appeared 

reinstated the removal order. Three days later Cervantes-Manzo 

filed another motion to reopen, which was denied. The Board of 

Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Cervantes-Manzo has filed 

another petition for judicial review.

As his brief in this court relates matters, he has been 

ordered removed from the United States for no better reason than 

giving insufficient attention to the calendar. That's not 

remotely correct. He has been ordered removed for multiple, 

serious felony convictions. He asked for extraordinary relief 

from the predicament in which his criminal conduct had placed 

him, and when the agency gave him that opportunity--and 

postponed the hearing date at his request, allowing him to 

remain in the United States for several additional years--he 

failed to appear. At some point patience must run out.

The argument that this court should direct the agency to 

give him still more opportunities to present his request for 

discretionary relief runs into the same problem that led us to 

dismiss the petition in 2000: an alien convicted of aggravated 

felonies is not entitled to judicial review. Although the Real 

ID Act of 2005 permits review of strictly legal issues, see 8 

U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(D), a contention that the agency has erred in 

balancing multiple factors under an open-ended standard is not a 

legal argument. See Tunis v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 

2006); Bokai v. Gonzales, 447 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2006). 

Application of a multi-factor standard is the very sort of 

discretionary call that the statute leaves to the agency.

The petition for review is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.
Exhibit 32.2

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 the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Wise Metals Group LLC (the Company) for the quarter ending March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kenneth Stastny, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 4, 2008



By:

/s/ Kenneth StastnyKenneth StastnyChief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise
adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Order entered April 6, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00777-CR

MICHAEL J. MARBLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F13-52953-M

ORDER

On February 26, 2015, this court ordered court reporter Belinda Baraka to file, within 

fifteen days, a supplemental record containing Defendant’s Exhibit no. 1, a CD containing 

photographs. To date, Ms. Baraka has not filed the supplemental record.

Accordingly, we ORDER court reporter Belinda Baraka to file, by 4:00 p.m. on 

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 2015, a supplemental record containing Defendant’s Exhibit no. 1, a CD. 

If the supplemental record is not filed by the date specified, the Court will order that Belinda 

Baraka not sit as a court reporter until the supplemental record is filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Ernest White, Presiding Judge, 194th Judicial District Court; Belinda Baraka, official 

court reporter, 194th Judicial District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Siam Imports, Inc.
(Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis Eldjarnson, Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, hereby 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 and belief:

   (1)  this quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date: December 21, 2004         /s/ Dennis Eldjarnson
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Executive Officer, Chief
                              Financial Officer and
                              Principal Accounting Officer of
                              Siam Imports, Inc., Registrant























<PAGE>
Exhibit 35.1  LOGO Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation OFFICERS CERTIFICATE The
undersigned hereby certifies that he is a duly authorized officer of Bridgecrest Acceptance Corporation (the Servicer), and that as such he is authorized to execute and deliver this certificate in the name and on behalf of Bridgecrest
Acceptance Corporation, and certifies that:  1.
I have reviewed the activities of the Servicer during the period October 25, 2023 through
December 31, 2023 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement; and  2.
to the best of my knowledge, based on such review and other than described herein, the Servicer has
substantially fulfilled all its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement for the above referenced period. This certificate is
delivered in accordance with Section 3.9 (a) of the Bridgecrest Lending Auto Securitization Trust 2023-1 Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of October 25, 2023, among Bridgecrest Lending Auto
Securitization Trust 2023-1, Bridgecrest Lending Auto Securitization Grantor Trust 2023-1, and Computershare Trust Company, National Association. This certificate is
dated as of December 31, 2023.  By:

/s/ Daniel GaudreauDaniel GaudreauChief Financial Officer
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE 124TH DISTRICT COURT OF GREGG COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 4th 

day of February, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was 

determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Peggy McCleskey, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00118-CR

Trial Court No. 43127-B

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Peggy McCleskey, has adequately indicated her inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 9th day of April, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2015

No. 04-14-00610-CR

Joe A. GOMEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR4656

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On February 24, 2015, after notifying appellant of a missed deadline to file his brief, this 

Court granted appellant’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, to March 6, 2015. After 

appellant, again, failed to file his brief, the court inquired by telephone regarding his intention to 

file a brief or motion for extension of time. Appellant filed a second motion requesting another 

30-day extension of time to April 6, 2015. The Court granted the second motion for extension of 

time and advised appellant that no further extensions would be granted. Appellant has failed to 

file a brief. 

Pursuant to rule 38.8(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we abate this case 

to the trial court and ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to answer the following 

questions:

(1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent, the trial court shall take such measures 

as may be necessary to assure the effective assistance of counsel, which may include the 

appointment of new counsel.

(3) Has appointed counsel abandoned the appeal? Because sanctions may be necessary, 

the trial court should address this issue even if new counsel is retained or substituted 

before the date of the hearing.
The trial court may, in its discretion, receive evidence on the first two questions by sworn 

affidavit from the appellant. The trial court shall, however, order appellant=s counsel to be 

present at the hearing.

The trial court is further ORDERED to file supplemental clerk=s and reporter=s records in 

this court, no later than 30 days from the date of this order, which shall include: (1) a 

transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence admitted, (2) written 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the above 

enumerated questions. All appellate filing dates are ABATED pending further orders from this 

court. 

_________________________________

Jason Pulliam, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court