alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,

AND HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES 

USA INC.

Defendants.

 C.A. No. 6:20-cv-00533-ADA

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Defendants hereby notify the Court that G. Blake Thompson of Mann | Tindel | 

Thompson, 300 West Main Street, Henderson, Texas 75652 makes a formal entry of appearance 

in the above-styled and numbered cause as counsel for Defendants, Huawei Technologies Co., 

Ltd., and Huawei Technologies USA Inc. The undersigned counsel requests a copy of all 

pleadings, discovery, correspondence and orders be sent to him. 

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 18 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 2
Dated: September 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

 By: /s/ G. Blake Thompson 

G. Blake Thompson

State Bar No. 24042033

blake@themannfirm.com

J. Mark Mann

State Bar No. 12926150

mark@themannfirm.com

MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON

300 West Main Street

Henderson, Texas 75652

(903) 657-8540

(903) 657-6003 (fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this 15th day of September, 2020.

/s/ G. Blake Thompson

G. Blake Thompson

Case 6:20-cv-00533-ADA Document 18 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 2
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANTHONY BRUNSON,

Appellant,

v.

HOWARD FOULKE,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2964

[April 25, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; David Haimes, Judge; L.T. Case No. 14-016607 (08).

Anthony Brunson, Madison, pro se.

Alyssa M. Reiter and Lindsey A. Hicks of Wicker Smith O'Hara McCoy 

& Ford, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40911

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BLAIR FREDERICK BRADLEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 772

Filed: November 27, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the 

influence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Blair Frederick Bradley was convicted of felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code 

§§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6), 18-8008. The district court sentenced Bradley to a unified term of eight 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, suspended the sentence, and placed 

him on probation. Bradley appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 
2

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Bradley’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 07/18 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.86 N 77.06 WMeters AGL
Docket No: FAA-2015-4810 Dir ID: 2015-NM-090-AD

. Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Date Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 6/4/15

Regional Airline Association 6/4/15

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 6/4/15

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 6/4/15
#### GIST et al. v. HOLT.

No. 4143.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont

May 27, 1943.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1943.

S. Austin Wier, of Dallas, for appellants.

E. B. Lewis, of Center, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

Appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal in this case must be sustained.

The judgment bears date November 30, 1942. Appeal bond was filed January 13, 1943. Thus it was not filed within thirty days after the date of the judgment as required by Rule 356, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Appellant points out that the judgment as copied into the transcript shows that same was filed with the clerk on December 24, 1942, and insists that time for filing appeal bond should be computed from that date. The courts have decided the point contrary to this contention. It now appears settled that time for filing appeal bonds must be computed from the day judgment is pronounced, or rendered, and not from the day it is reduced to writing or entered in the minutes. Bruce v. San Antonio Music Co., Tex.Civ.App., 165 S.W.2d page 243, writ refused, and cases cited.

Appeal dismissed.

COMBS, J., concurs.

On Rehearing

COMBS, Justice.

In his motion for rehearing, duly verified, appellant insists that no judgment was. either pronounced, rendered or entered in this case until December 24, 1942. His appeal bond recites that the trial judge caused judgment to be entered December 24, 1942.

 Were the record silent as to the date when the judgment was rendered no-doubt we could receive evidence in the form of affidavits or “other satisfactory evidence” to show the date. Rule 406. But this can be done only to supply jurisdictional facts “not apparent in the record.” Here the judgment which appellant brought up in the transcript recited the date of its rendition “On this 30th day of November, 1942.” This is controlling. The transcript cannot be impeached by affidavit or by recitals in the appeal bond prepared by appellant.

The new rules are quite liberal in allowing amendment of the record on appeal and this court is inclined to go just as *217•far as the rules and due regard for orderly procedure will permit to give a litigant his day in court. But we are bound by the record. Were this not so much confusion and bickering would result. We suggest that in any case where the record •as made in the trial court does not correctly reflect the proceedings the way to correct it is by appropriate and timely proceedings in the court where the trial occurred.

Motion for rehearing is overruled.

O’QUINN, J., concurs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

DGG GROUP, LLC,

Plaintiff

v.

LOCKHART FINE FOODS, LLC,

Defendant

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. A-20-CV-330-RP

O R D E R

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Third-Party Subpoena (Dkt. 

No. 27), filed on April 27, 2020. On April 28, 2020, the District Court referred the Motion to the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 72, and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas.

The parties have notified the Court that the Motion is now moot. Accordingly, the Court HEREBY 

DISMISSES as MOOT Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Third-Party Subpoena

(Dkt. No. 27). 

SIGNED on May 6, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00330-RP Document 31 Filed 05/06/20 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                                  CERTIFICATION

      I, Harold F. Zagunis, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Sequoia
Residential Funding, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certify that:

      1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of the
Certificates for periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of
Sequoia Residential Funding, Inc.;

      2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state
a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these
reports;

      4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement included
in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in accordance with the
terms of the pooling and servicing agreement, and except as disclosed in the
reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing
agreement; and

      5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report
provided by an independent registered public accounting firm, after conducting a
review in compliance with the Uniform Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing agreement, that
is included in these reports.

      In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on
information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Morgan Stanley
Dean Witter Credit Corporation, as Servicer, GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.,
as Servicer, Cendant Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, Bank of America, N.A.,
as Servicer, GMAC Mortgage Corporation, as Servicer, and Countrywide Home Loans,
Inc., as Servicer.

Date: December 5, 2005

/s/ Harold F. Zagunis
-------------------------------
Signature
Name: Harold F. Zagunis
Title: Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 30, 2024. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 30, 2024 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A25I0035. THE CITY OF VIDALIA, GEORGIA v. AMY WADE JOHNSON.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 23SV00052
#### WHITLEY v. STATE.

No. 27088.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 16, 1954.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the offense of the unlawful possession of marijuana; the punishment is assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

Accompanying the record is the affidavit of appellant requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court
LETTER AGREEMENT

     This Letter Agreement ("Letter Agreement") is made and entered into as of
the 2nd day of February 2001, by and between ChemoCentryx, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company") and Techne Corporation, a Minnesota corporation
("Techne").

                                RECITALS

          WHEREAS, the Company and Techne previously entered into an Investment
Agreement dated November 18, 1997, pursuant to which Techne purchased shares of
the Company's Series A Preferred Stock (the "Series A Stock") and was granted
warrants to purchase shares of the Series A Stock (the "Warrants"); and

          WHEREAS, the Company and Techne desire to amend the terms of the
Warrants.

                                AGREEMENT

          NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

          1.  Relation to the Warrants.  Except as hereby amended, the Warrants
shall continue in full force and effect.

          2.  Amendment.  The Warrants are hereby amended so that they shall
not expire until December 31, 2005.

          3.  Miscellaneous.  This Letter Agreement and all acts and
transactions pursuant hereto and the rights and obligation of the parties
hereto shall be governed, construed and interpreted in all respects by the laws
of the State of California, without regard to the conflict of law provisions
thereof.

          4.  Counterparts.  This Letter Agreement may be executed in
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which
together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

                         [Signature Page Follows]

     The parties have executed this Letter Agreement as of the date first above
written.

                                                      COMPANY:

                                                      CHEMOCENTRYX, INC.
                                                      By:
                                                      Name:
                                                      Title:


                                                      TECHNE:

                                                      TECHNE CORPORATION
                                                      By:
                                                      Name:
                                                      Title:
Exhibit 99.2

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 of Stone Container Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/
Charles A. Hinrichs

Charles
A. Hinrichs Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 9, 2002

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                                      13
<PAGE>


COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWABS, INC.
                  CWABS MASTER TRUST, SERIES 2002-D SUBTRUST,
         REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN ASSET BACKED NOTES, SERIES 2002-D


         The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (the "Master Servicer"), and do hereby further
certify pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Sale 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/Joseph M. Candelario                              Dated: March 27, 2003

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT
AND COMPLIANCE OFFICER


/s/ Mark Wong                                        Dated: March 27, 2003

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT


                                      14
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. EL01-3-000]

Take notice that on October 6, 2000, Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (MSCG), tendered for filing a complaint pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act against PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) alleging that, in order to advance the Commission's goal of regional uniformity and coordination and to avoid other market problems, PJM should eliminate (1) its bid cap by the end of October  2000, to coincide with the expiration of the New York and New England bid caps and (2) eliminate its ICAP requirement and deficiency charge commensurate with ISO-NE's actions to date. Given the immediacy of this date,  MSCG requests fast track procession of its complaint by the Commission.

Copies of the filing were served upon PJM and other interested parties.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal  Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before October 25, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet a http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before October 26, 2000.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26618  Filed 10-16-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### ZUNDELL v. STATE.

No. 26407.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 29, 1953.

*305No attorney on appeal for.appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

Appellant waived-a jury and entered his plea of not guilty before the court on a charge of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. He' was found guilty and assessed a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception. The proceedings .appear regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Gerald Goch, Appellant.

Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Appellate Part, First Department,

December 6, 1957.

*Americas Delli Paoli*for appellant.

*Frank 8. Hogan, District Attorney (Lawrence K. Feitell*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Appellant and a codefendant were convicted of disorderly conduct in that each was alleged to have loitered in a public place for the purpose of soliciting men to commit an act of lewdness. The trial court, over the objection of appellant’s counsel, apparently held that admissions made by the codefendant after his apprehension by the police were binding upon the appellant who was present at the time of the admissions.

Any concert of action between appellant and the codefendant ended with the advent of the officer; hence any statement thereafter made by the codefendant was not binding on appellant. *(People*v. *Storrs,*207 N. Y. 147; *People*v. *Ryan,*263 N. Y. 298; *People*v. *Vaccaro,*288 N. Y. 170; *People*v. *Marshall,*306 N. Y. 223.)

*470This basic rule is not altered either by the fact that the appellant was present at the time of the admissions or by the fact that he himself made independent admissions at the same time. There is no evidence that appellant adopted his codefendant’s statements as his own.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed as to appellant and a new trial ordered.

Kozicke, Heller and Rossbaoh, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.