alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AO 442 (REV. 12/85)

United States District Court FILED

Western District of Texas Feb 5 2020

El Paso Division Clerk, U.S. District Court

Western District of Texas

By: CR

Deputy

USA

vs.

(1) KERWIN GUILARTE-NOAH

§

§

§

§

§

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

CASE NUMBER: EP:20-M -00713(1)

 I, the undersigned complainant being duly sworn state the following is true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and belief. On or about February 04, 2020 in El Paso county, in the WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

defendant did, being an alien to the United States, enter, attempt to enter, or was found in the United States after having

been previously excluded, deported, or removed from the United States without receiving permission to reapply for

admission to the United States from the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Homeland Security,

the successor pursuant to Title 6, United States Code, Sections 202(3), 202(4), and 557

in violation of Title 8 United States Code, Section(s) 1326

 I further state that I am a(n) Border Patrol Agent and that this complaint is based on the following facts: "

The DEFENDANT, Kerwin GUILARTE-Noah, an alien to the United States and a dual citizen of Cuba and Jamaica

was found approximately 2.7 miles west of the Tornillo Port of Entry in Fabens, Texas in the Western District of

Texas. From "

Continued on the attached sheet and made a part of hereof.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence,

Signature of Complainant

Rangel, Jorge L

Border Patrol Agent

February 5, 2020 at EL PASO, Texas

File Date City and State

ANNE T. BERTON ______________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Signature of Judicial Officer

OATH TELEPHONICALLY SWORN

AT 1:19 P.M.

FED.R.CRIM.P. 4.1(b)(2)(A)

Case 3:20-cr-00771-KC Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 2
CONTINUATION OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT - EP:20-M -00713(1)

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

(1) KERWIN GUILARTE-NOAH

FACTS (CONTINUED)

statements made by the DEFENDANT to the processing agent, DEFENDANT was determined to be a native of

Cuba and citizen of both Cuba and Jamaica, without immigration documents allowing him to be or remain in the

United States legally. Defendant has been previously removed from the United States to Jamaica on November

21, 2019 through Alexandria, LA. Defendant has not previously received the expressed consent from the Attorney

General of the United States or the Secretary of Homeland Security to reapply for admission into the United

States.

Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause as set forth

herein, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation.

IMMIGRATION HISTORY:

The DEFENDANT has been deported 1 time(s), the last one being to JAMAICA on November 21, 2019, through

ALEXANDRIA, LA

CRIMINAL HISTORY:

NONE

Case 3:20-cr-00771-KC Document 1 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 2
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Ohio Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Ohio Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Increases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 48     | 30     | 114   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 33     | 12     | 32     | 10     | 26     | 29     | 51     | 45     | 20     | 45    
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 34     | 26     | 21     | 36     | 27     | 39     | 91     | 101    | 276    | 401   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 243    | 129    | 186    | 121    | 103    | 166    | 49     | 144    | 135    | 70    
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 68     | 17     | 180    | 530    | 1,548  | 2,364  | 3,057  | 7,395  | 2,730  | 7,863 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,482  | 5,749  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

JULIE SOLIS, individually, and on 

behalf of all other similarly situated. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

WFC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:20-cv-00404-OLG 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), 

Plaintiff, JULIE SOLIS, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, voluntarily 

dismisses Defendant, WFC LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a WORLD FINANCE 

CORPORATION, without prejudice from this action with each party to bear its own attorney’s 

fees and costs. This notice of voluntary dismissal is being filed with the Court before service by 

Defendant of either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. 

DATED: May 28, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 

JULIE SOLIS 

By: /s/ Joseph S. Davidson 

 

Mohammed O. Badwan 

Joseph S. Davidson 

 SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 

 2500 South Highland Avenue 

Suite 200 

 Lombard, Illinois 60148 

 +1 630-575-8181 

mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com 

jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com 

Case 5:20-cv-00404-OLG Document 12 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 28, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas by using the 

CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that 

service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 

/s/ Joseph S. Davidson 

Case 5:20-cv-00404-OLG Document 12 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 2
900500.031213 4827-7835-4359.1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 

MARION HOPKINS 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

PPH MORTGAGE 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 CASE NO. 5:20-cv-303 

DEFENDANT’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND 

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Defendant, PHH Mortgage 

Corporation (“PHH MC” or “Defendant”), improperly named as PPH Mortgage, files this 

Corporate Disclosure Statement and Certificate of Interested Persons. 

I. PHH’S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

PHH MC is a New Jersey corporation. One hundred percent of the common stock 

of PHH MC is owned by PHH Corporation, and one hundred percent of PHH Corporation’s 

common stock is owned by Ocwen Financial Corporation. Ocwen Financial Corporation 

is a publicly traded corporation, with no entity owning more than 10% of its stock. 

II. CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

The following parties are financially interested in the outcome of this litigation: 

a. Plaintiff Marion Hopkins; and 

b. Defendant PHH MC. 

 

Case 5:20-cv-00303-XR Document 2 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 2
2 

Dated: March 12, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

 /s/ Brett W. Schouest 

Brett W. Schouest 

Attorney in Charge 

State Bar No. 17807700 

bschouest@dykema.com

Neyma Figueroa 

State Bar No. 24097684 

nfigueroa@dykema.com 

 112 E. Pecan, Suite 1800 

 San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 Telephone: (210) 554-5500 

 Facsimile: (210) 226-8395 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that the foregoing document has been served on the following 

counsel of record via the court’s ECF filing system and via email on March 12, 2020, in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

Ramon S. Rodriguez Jr. 

Rodriguez Garza, P.L.L.C. 

247 Olmos Dr., Suite 200 

San Antonio, Texas 78212 

rsrjr04@hotmail.com 

/s/ Brett W. Schouest 

Brett W. Schouest 

Case 5:20-cv-00303-XR Document 2 Filed 03/12/20 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-20435

Summary Calendar

 

PAUL LAWSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-97-CV-2816

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

December 23, 1999

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Lawson appeals the district court’s award of summary

judgment to Harris County (the County) on his disabilitydiscrimination claim. Lawson first argues that the district

court erred in determining that the County did not regard him as

disabled. See Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare Sys., 176 F.3d 847,

859 (5th Cir. 1999)(one need not have an actual disability to be

regarded as “disabled” for ADA purposes; this requirement may be

fulfilled through a showing that one was perceived or regarded as

disabled). Lawson, however, failed to put forth evidence to 
No. 99-20435

-2-

counter the defendant’s evidence that it did not perceive him as

disabled. It thus must fail. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317, 324 (1986).

Lawson next contends that the district court erred by

considering only the major life function of working in analyzing

whether the County considered him disabled. The district court

did not so err, as there was no evidence of limitation of any

other life functions. See Hamilton v. Southwestern Bell Tel.

Co., 136 F.3d 1047, 1050 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Lawson contends that the district court erred in determining

that the County did not regard him as limited in his ability to

work. Again, Lawson provides no evidence to support this

conclusional assertion, which is insufficient to defeat the

defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Lawson has failed to

show that the district court erred in granting the County’s

motion for summary judgment. This judgment is thus

AFFIRMED.
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-11-0000494

31-JUL-2014

08:40 AM
# Third District Court of Appeal
**State of Florida**

Opinion filed September 22, 2021

.

________________ No. 3D20

- 511 Lower Tribunal No s

. F 19

- 10620, F 18

- 13268

________________


### Luigi Rick Arce , Appellant,

vs.


### The State of Florida , Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami

- Dade County, Cristina Miranda , Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez
, Public Defender and Susan S. Lerner, Assistant Public Defender, fo r appellant. Ashley Moody , Attorney General, and Sandra Lipman , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, GORDO and BOKOR , JJ.

PER CURIAM.2 ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

Lui gi Rick Arce appeals his sentence after a plea on a probation violation. The State concedes that “it was error to assess 24 community sanction violation points for a new felony when a new felony was not the basis for the violation.” As “the reviewing court cannot determine conclusively from the record that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence despite the erroneous scoresheet, remand for resentencing is required.” State v. Anderson , 905 So. 2d 11 1 , 116 (Fla. 2005).

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4936 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4936

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of 
benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, with 2- aminoethanol and Poly (oxy-1,2-
        ethanediyl), a-[1-oxo-9- octadecenyl]- w-hydroxy-, (9Z).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2012

Mr. LaTourette introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on mixtures of 
benzenesulfonic acid, dodecyl-, with 2- aminoethanol and Poly (oxy-1,2-
        ethanediyl), a-[1-oxo-9- octadecenyl]- w-hydroxy-, (9Z).

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF BENZENESULFONIC ACID, DODECYL-, WITH 2- 
              AMINOETHANOL AND POLY (OXY-1,2-ETHANEDIYL), A-[1-OXO-9- 
              OCTADECENYL]- W-HYDROXY-, (9Z).

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.78 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to mixtures of benzenesulfonic 
acid, dodecyl-, with 2- aminoethanol and Poly (oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-
[1-oxo-9- octadecenyl]- w-hydroxy-, (9Z)) is amended by striking the 
date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (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>
```
Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB   Document 39-3   Filed 05/12/20   Page 1 of 5

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB   Document 39-3   Filed 05/12/20   Page 2 of 5

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB   Document 39-3   Filed 05/12/20   Page 3 of 5

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB   Document 39-3   Filed 05/12/20   Page 4 of 5

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB   Document 39-3   Filed 05/12/20   Page 5 of 5
#### ALLEN et al. v. SMITH et al.

No. 3156.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

May 27, 1954

M. E. Gates, Huntsville, for appellants.

John-M;-Barron, Bryan, for appellees.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This was a suit brought by appellees to establish a roadway, and for permanent injunction against interference with its use. Trial was to a jury, upon whose verdict judgment was rendered for appellees. Appellants gave notice of appeal and caused Transcript and Statement of Facts to be filed in this court on 31 December 1953 and 5 January 1954 respectively.

Appellants did not file any brief within the time prescribed by Rule 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, nor at any time thereafter. It is our view that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. See Rule 415, T.R.C.P.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                        CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 of Sports Arenas,  Inc. and
susidiairies  (the  "Company") for the three months ended  September 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  Steven R.  Whitman,  Chief  Financial  Officer and  Secretary of the
Company,  hereby  certifies,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  to the best of his
knowledge, 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/ STEVEN R. WHITMAN
     -----------------------
         Steven R. Whitman
         Chief Financial Officer

         November 14, 2003

This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
July 29, 1953 

Hon. Carl C. Conley opiiaion No. s-77 ,,. 

Criminal District Attorney 

Willacy County Re: The force and effect of a 

Ragmondville, Texas judgment for ad valorem 

taxes together with the lien 

upon abstracting the jadgment withont a writ of exeDear Mr. Conley: cution ialrrtrg. 

You Bb¶te that fhe Raymondvillo Memorial Hospital recently had a judgment rendered against them for delinqusrtt city, school 

and coanty taxes. You further state that it is the desire of the hospital 

to pay the judgment in inatallmentn to extend over a twoiyear period. 

You request our opinion whether the judgment together with the lien 

would become dormant in the event execution was not issaed during the 

two-year period. 

Article 3773, V.C.S., as amended, reads in part: 

*If no execution is issued within ten years after 

the rendition of a judgment in any court of record, the 

judgment shall become dormant and no uecrtlon 6halI 

issue thereon unless such judgment be revived. . . .* 

The Court of Civil Appeals in Cox v. Nelson, 223 S.W.Zd 84 (1949). in 

which the Supreme Court refused writ of error, held that Article 3773, 

supra. controlled oyer Article 5532, V.C.S., which provides: j;,.; 

“A judgment in any c~ourt of record, where execution is not iasaed within twelve months after the 

rendition of the judgment, may be revived by ache 

facias or an action of debt brought thereon within ten 

years after date of such judgment, and not after.’ 

You will note that Article 3773 specifically provides that 

a judgment in any court of record shall become dormant only in the 

event no execution is kaued within ten years after rendition of the judgment. 

You are therefore advised that you will not prejdke the 

county’s right to colkt the jadgment rendered against the hospital. or 
Hon. Carl C.. Conley, page 2 (S-,71) 

the lien thereon, by extending time of payment for two yeurs. 

SUMMARY 

A judpnent for ad valor&m tares togetherwith 

the Lien will be in fdl force and effect tipon atitrscting the j~dgmemt for ‘a period of ten yean withont a 

writ of emcation imnhg thereon. 

Yoatrs very truly, 

JOHN BEN SHEPPERD 

Attorney G-era1 

APPROVED1 

WfIlis E. Greaham 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

First AssFatast 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

WVG:mg
Exhibit 99.1
                                                                  ------------

                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP

                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER

                                  CWALT, INC.
                       ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2004-26T1
             MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-26T1

     The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP
(a "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16
of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

(i) A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the preceding
calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer under the
Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

(ii) To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer
has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such year.

/s/ Craig Baingo                       Dated: March 29, 2006
------------------------

CRAIG BAINGO
EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT


/s/ Kevin Meyers                       Dated: March 29, 2006
----------------

KEVIN MEYERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, LOAN ADMINISTRATION
June 30, 2015

Mr. Chris Gustaf

son

S keyeView Productions LLC

870 Harrison Drive

Big Lake, MN 55309

Dear Mr. Gustaf

son :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we c an not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your March 26 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0736 ),

but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t

comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any

further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the ex emption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your req uest any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure