alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### KETCHIE v. STATE.

No. 25973.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 22, 1952.

No attorney on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.

All the proceedings appear regular; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO

______________________________________

MELODY JOY CANTU AND DR. RODRIGO 

CANTU,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DR. SANDRA GUERRA and DIGITAL 

FORENSICS CORPORATION, LLC,

Defendants.

5:20-CV-0746 JKP – HJB

______________________________________

Continuance Request On Consent Of All Parties

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 42 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 4
1

Plaintiffs Dr. Rodrigo Cantu and Melody Joy Cantu, and Co-Defendants Dr. Sandra 

Guerra and Digital Forensics Corporation, LLC, through their undersigned attorneys, hereby 

stipulate:

1. The last filed motion in this matter is Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Their Motion to 

Dismiss Dr. Sandra Guerra’s Amended Counterclaims.

2. The parties are currently going through discovery. Our ADR report is due February 

15, 2021, along with offers of settlement from those requesting relief. On February 

17, 2021 expert designations are due

3. Due to a medical emergency, Plaintiffs’ counsel reached out to opposing counsel for 

both Co-Defendants and had a good faith conference regarding their request for a 

continuance.

4. All parties are in agreement and stipulate to a one-month continuance of our 

discovery deadlines. With the new deadlines as follows:

• March 15, 2021: ADR Report and Offers of Settlement from Parties 

Requesting Relief

• March 17, 2021: Designation of Experts by Parties Asserting Claims

• April 1, 2021: Responses to Settlement Offers from Opposing Parties

• April 17, 2021: Last day to Amend/Supplement Pleadings, and Joinder

• May 2, 2021: Designation of Experts by Parties Resisting Claims

• June 17, 2021: Discovery Deadline

• June 31, 2021: Joint Report on Settlement Negotiations

• July 16, 2021: Last Day to File Dispositive Motions

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 42 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 4
2

Dated: February 11, 2021 Stipulated and respectfully submitted,

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Tor Ekeland (NY Bar No. 4493631)

Pro Hac Vice

Tor Ekeland Law, PLLC

30 Wall Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 

t: (718) 737 - 7264

f: (718) 504 - 5417

tor@torekeland.com

and

/s/ Rain Levy Minns

Rain Minns

State Bar No. 24034581

Minns Law Firm, P.C.

d/b/a Rain Minns Law Firm

4412 Spicewood Springs Rd., Suite 500

Austin, Texas 78759-8583

Tel.: 512-372-3222

Fax: 512-861-2403

rain@rainminnslaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs Melody Joy Cantu and 

Dr. Rodrigo Cantu

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 42 Filed 02/11/21 Page 3 of 4
3

Certificate of Service

I certify that on this 11th of February 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send

electronic notification of such filing to the parties on record.

/s/ Tor Ekeland

Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 42 Filed 02/11/21 Page 4 of 4
October 9, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

YANTSEY GONZALES, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00104-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 27, 2019

NO. 03-18-00744-CV

Catherine Powell, Appellant

v.

Jose Rocha III d/b/a Rocha III Contractors, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF CALDWELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND TRIANA

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 2, 2018. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: 2015-CE-023-AD 

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must enszn·e the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Part I: Modify 1.0 $10 28 

The known number of products in compliance: 0 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $2,660 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: G 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

testing, and close- replacement) up) 

Part I: Preflight 0.1 $0 security check 

Part II: Inspection 1.0 $0 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): Basic warranty 

7 
for up to 0.5 hours plus parts is provided for Part I modification. Part I preflight security check is 

an allowed option in the SB and AD for up to 1 0 hours prior to incorporation of Part I 

modification. Part II inspection is required every 50 hours until terminating action is provided by 

Piper, but the frequency and cost will depend on the owner I operator aircraft usage. 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? @ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? @ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. @ 

YES D NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? @ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation: 

8
**
**Exhibit 31**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**Rule 15d-14(d)**

I, Brett Seybold, certifythat: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10-K of USAA Auto Owner Trust 2017-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statementof 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 with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided underForm 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

 
 4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 ofRegulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

 
 5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and theirrelated attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have beenincluded as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. 
**

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the followingunaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association. 

 
/s/ Brett Seybold
Name:    Brett Seybold

Title:      President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer,

               Principal Financial Officer, Comptroller and Senior

               Officer in Charge of Securitization

March 24, 2020
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 3, 2013

t0826 

# Order

Clerk September 3, 2013

147198

DAMIAN LANG,

Plaintiff

- Appella nt,

v SC: 147198

COA: 307141

Oakland CC: 2010

- 115921

- CH

GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

CAROL WALSH and STARPOINTE

MORTGAGE,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 23, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>



                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE
              -----------------------------------------------------

                   CHASE CREDIT CARD OWNER TRUST SERIES 2002-4

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



         The undersigned, an Authorized Officer of the Chase Manhattan Bank USA,
National Association, as Administrator pursuant to the Indenture for the Chase
Credit Card Owner Trust Series 2002-4 does hereby certify that:

                  1.       The undersigned is an Authorized Officer pursuant to
                  the Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate to the
                  Indenture Trustee.

                  2.       This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 3.9
                  of the Indenture.

                  3.       A review of the activities of the Issuer during the
                  period from the closing date until December 31, 2003, and of
                  performance under this Indenture has been made under the
                  supervision of the undersigned.

                  4.       To the best of the undersigned knowledge, based on
                  such review, the Issuer has complied with all conditions and
                  covenants in all material respects under this Indenture
                  throughout the period from the closing date until December 31,
                  2003. No default in the compliance of any such condition or
                  covenant has occurred or is continuing except as set forth in
                  paragraph 5 below.

                  5.       The following is a description of each default in the
                  performance of the Issuer's obligations under the provisions
                  of the Indenture known to the undersigned to have been made
                  during such period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature
                  of each such default, (ii) the action taken by the Issuer, if
                  any, to remedy each such default and (iii) the current status
                  of each such default: NONE.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this certificate
this 30th day of March, 2004.

                                      By: CHASE MANHATTAN BANK USA,
                                          National Association, as Administrator




                                      By: /s/ Patricia M. Garvey
                                          --------------------------------------
                                      Name:  Patricia M. Garvey
                                      Title: Vice President
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

February 2, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132957 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. _________________________________________ Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

IN RE SUMMER MICHELLE CAMPBELL and 

JAMES COREY IRONS, Minors. 

_________________________________________ 

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Petitioner-Appellee, 

v SC: 132957 

 COA: 270610

 Oakland CC

BEVERLY DAWN CAMPBELL,

Respondent-Appellant. 

 Family Division: 05-706227-NA 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 21, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

s0130 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

February 2, 2007 

Clerk
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 080300B]


Marine Mammals; File No. 555-1565

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of permit.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. James T. Harvey (Principal 
Investigator, PI), Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, P.O. Box 450, Moss 
Landing CA 95039 has been issued a permit to take Pacific harbor seals 
(Phoca vitulina richardsi) for purposes of scientific research.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
    Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/
713-2289);
    Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, 
BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115-0070,(206/526-6150);
    Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, 501 West Ocean Blvd., 
Suite 4200, Long Beach, California 90802-4213,(562/980-4001).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Simona Roberts or Ruth Johnson, 301/
713-2289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 6, 2000, notice was published in the 
Federal Register (65 FR 35903) that a request for a scientific research 
permit to take Pacific harbor seals had been submitted by the above-
named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the 
authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).
    The applicant is authorized to capture, handle and tag 1,600 
Pacific harbor seals per year of all age and sex classes near haul-out 
sites throughout California, Oregon and Washington. Captured seals will 
be subject to all or some of the following activities: blood and tissue 
sampling, flipper tagging, PIT tagging, branding, lavaging, and video 
camera attachment. Acoustic playback experiments and scat collection 
are also authorized around the haul-out sites. In addition, the 
applicant is authorized to surgically implant radio tags in 15 captive, 
rehabilitated Pacific harbor seals and to conduct feeding studies on 12 
captive, rehabilitated Pacific harbor seals.

    Dated: October 5, 2000.
Ann Terbush,
Permit and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-26084 Filed 10-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

954 

CA 15-00280 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF EXCELSIOR, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ASSESSOR, TOWN OF AMHERST, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, 

AND AMHERST CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, 

INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT. 

WOLFGANG & WEINMANN, LLP, BUFFALO (PETER ALLEN WEINMANN OF COUNSEL),

FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT. 

HODGSON RUSS LLP, BUFFALO (JOSHUA FEINSTEIN OF COUNSEL), FOR

INTERVENOR-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy

J. Walker, A.J.), entered April 17, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to

RPTL article 7. The order, among other things, denied the petition. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and the matter is

remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings in

accordance with the following memorandum: We agree with petitioner

that Supreme Court failed to comply with RPTL 720 (2) by failing “to

set forth the essential facts upon which it relied in arriving at its

determination of the fair value of the property during the tax year[]

in question” (Matter of Zacher v Assessor of Town of Hamburg, 217 AD2d

945, 945; see Matter of South Slope Holding Corp. v Board of

Assessment Review of Town of Jerusalem, 254 AD2d 684, 686). 

Consequently, the order must be reversed and the matter remitted to

Supreme Court to comply with RPTL 720 (2). We note, however, that the

court may not set an assessment in excess of the total assessment on

the tax roll (see Matter of Shubert Org. v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y.,

60 NY2d 93, 95).

Entered: October 9, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA

July 12, 2024

SC-2024-0303

Ex parte Leonard Lamar Gravesande. PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: 

Leonard Lamar Gravesande v. State of Alabama) (Mobile Circuit Court: 

CC-18-2242; Criminal Appeals: CR-2023-0157).

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WHEREAS, the petition for writ of certiorari in the above 

referenced cause has been duly submitted and considered by the 

Supreme Court of Alabama and the judgment indicated below was 

entered in this cause on July 12, 2024:

Writ Denied. No Opinion. Shaw, J. -- Parker, C.J., and Bryan, 

Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur.

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Rule 41, Ala. R. App. P., IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's judgment in this cause is certified 

on this date. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, unless otherwise ordered 

by this Court or agreed upon by the parties, the costs of this cause are 

hereby taxed as provided by Rule 35, Ala. R. App. P.

I, Megan B. Rhodebeck, certify that this is the record of the judgment of the Court, witness 

my hand and seal.

Clerk, Supreme Court of Alabama
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

NATHAN HERRING, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-4100 ) ALFRED O. BONATI, M.D., GULF COAST ) ORTHOPEDIC CENTER-ALFRED O. ) BONATI, M.D., P.A.; MEDICAL ) DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ) PASCO COUNTY d/b/a THE BONATI ) INSTITUTE; AMERICAN MEDICAL CARE, ) INC.; and MAUREEN D'ERRICO, ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed March 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Sharpe Byrd, Judge. Randall O. Reder of Randall O. Reder, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Samuel J. Heller of Heller Law, PLLC, St. Petersburg, for Appellee Alfred O. Bonati, M.D., Gulf Coast Orthopedic Center-Alfred O. Bonati, M.D., P.A. No appearance for remaining Appellees.- 2 -

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended on June 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) and to which this certification is furnished as an exhibit, I, Sarah H. Moore, the principal financial officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 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) 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: August 4, 2005



/s/    SARAH H. MOORESarah H. Moore Chief Financial Officer




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and will be retained by The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Motion Granted and Order filed November 4, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-13-00979-CV

____________

IN RE RH WHITE OAK, LLC, BRIAN HARDY, COLIN ZAK, ENTEX 

PARTNERS, LTD., AND ENTEX MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

125th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2010-81470

O R D E R

On October 31, 2013, relators, RH White Oak, LLC, Brian Hardy, Colin Zak, 

Entex Partners, Ltd., and Entex Management Services, LLC, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221. Relators ask this court 

to order the Honorable Kyle Carter, Judge of the 125th District Court, in Harris

County, Texas, to set aside his order dated October 25, 2013 granting sanctions for 

discovery abuse, entered in trial court cause number 2010-81470, styled Lone Star 

Bank v. RH White Oak, LLC, et al. Relators claim respondent abused his discretion 
2

by imposing sanctions against them.

Relators have also filed a motion for a temporary stay of proceedings below. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. On October 31, 2013, relators asked this court 

to stay proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for writ of 

mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators’ request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relators will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators’ motion and 

issue the following order:

We ORDER the commencement of trial on November 5, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., 

and the enforcement of the October 25, 2013 order granting sanctions for discovery 

abuse in trial court cause number 2010-81470, styled Lone Star Bank v. RH White 

Oak, LLC, et al., STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators’ petition 

for writ of mandamus, or until further order of this court. 

In addition, the court requests the real parties in interest, to file a response to 

the petition for writ of mandamus on or before November 19, 2013. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 52.4. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Busby, Donovan, and Wise.