alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 21
- 00608
- CV

Bradley Smith , Appellant

v. Lorena Smith , Appellee

FROM THE 459TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- FM
- 20
- 007149 , THE HONORABLE J. ANDREW HATHCOCK , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

P ER CURIAM

Bradley Smith has filed a notice of appeal of the trial court ’ s oral rendition of a divorce dissolving his marriage to Lorena Smith

. However, Bradley ’ s notice of appeal is premature because the trial court has not yet signed a divorce decree , see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, 27.1(a), and this Court requested that Bradley provide authority as to how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over his appeal in the absence of a signed f inal judgment

. See L ehmann v.
Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191 , 195 (Tex. 2001) (providing general rule that appeal may be taken only from fina l judgment); see Te x. R. App. P. 26.1 (prov iding timetable for perfection of appeal based on date judgment is signed)

. Bradley has file d a response requesting that th is Court abate this appeal until the trial court sign s the divorce decree and rules on his pending motion for new trial , either expressly or by operati on of law.2 Th is Court grant s Bradley ’ s motion to abate this appeal

. The appeal is abated until further order of th is Court. The trial court shall file a supplemental clerk ’ s record with thi s Court within thirty days o f its losing plenary power of this cause

. The supplemental record should include the signed final divorce dec ree and the trial court ’ s ruling, if any, on Bradley ’ s motion for new trial. Th e parties shall file with this Court a status update o f the trial court ’ s proceedings within sixty days of this order. It is so ordered on April 27, 2022

.

Before Justice s G oo dwin, Baker, and Trian a Abated and Remanded Filed: April 27, 2022
confidential







2018 Annual Statement of Service'. Compliance
(Item 1123)



Pooling and Servicing
Agreement (the "Pooling and Servicing Agreement") dated as of March 1, 2015 by and among Deutsche Mortgage & Asset
Receiving Corporation as Depositor, KeyBank National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee, Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and Park Bridge Lender
Services LLC as Operating Advisor relating to the Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, COMM 2015-DC1 Mortgage
Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates (COMM 2015-DC1)



The undersigned,
a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the "Special Servicer") herein certifies
to the following:

| | 1. | All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | 2, | A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer
for the period of January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 (the "Reporting Period") in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing
Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | To
                                         the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all
                                         of its obligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material
                                         respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure to fulfill any such
                                         obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has
                                         been specifically identified herein.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Certified by: | /s/ Adam Singer                |  | Date: March 1, 2019
|------------- | ------------------------------ |  | -------------------
|              | Adam Singer, Managing Director |  |                    









confidential
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Milton Edward Griggs

No. 06-15-00096-CR

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the petition for writ of mandamus 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the petition.

RENDERED JUNE 10, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 35 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 35

Recognizing Belleville, New Jersey, as the birthplace of the industrial 
                    revolution in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 1993

  Mr. Klein submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Recognizing Belleville, New Jersey, as the birthplace of the industrial 
                    revolution in the United States.

Whereas, in 1753, Josiah Hornblower, an English engineer who was an associate 
        and rival of James Watt, assembled the 1st functioning steam engine in 
        the Western Hemisphere in Belleville, New Jersey, to pump water from the 
        Schuyler copper mines;
Whereas, approximately 40 years after such assembly, the 1st steam engine made 
        in the United States was manufactured in a foundry in Belleville from 
        designs by Josiah Hornblower;
Whereas the designs were commissioned by Nicholas Roosevelt, who was the great-
        uncle of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt, to power the 
        Polacca, which was the 1st experimental steamboat in the United States;
Whereas the Polacca negotiated the Passaic River on October 21, 1798, which was 
        several years before Robert Fulton's boat, Clermont, sailed the Hudson 
        River;
Whereas historians herald the invention of the steam engine as the beginning of 
        the industrial revolution;
Whereas the presence of Josiah Hornblower in Belleville brought many of the 
        initiators of the industrial revolution in the United States to 
        Belleville;
Whereas such individuals included members of the Rutgers family, many of whom 
        are buried in the cemetery of the old Dutch Reformed Church in 
        Belleville; and
Whereas Belleville has a rightful claim to the title ``Birthplace of the 
        American Industrial Revolution'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That--
            (1) the Congress recognizes Belleville, New Jersey, as the 
        birthplace of the industrial revolution in the United States; 
        and
            (2) the President is authorized and requested to issue a 
        proclamation honoring Belleville as such birthplace.

                                 <all>
```
Case 4:22-cr-00120-Y Document 25 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 47
Case 4:22-cr-00120-Y Document 25 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 48
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1114V

UNPUBLISHED

NICOLE HARDER, as Parent and 

Legal Representative of Her Minor 

Son, J.A.H.,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: January 16, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Rotavirus Vaccine;

Intussusception

Glen Sturtevant, Jr., Rawls Law Group, Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

Mark Hellie, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On July 31, 2019, Nicole Harder, as parent and legal representative of her minor 

son, J.A.H., filed a petition for compensation under the National Vaccine Injury 

Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.,

2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner 

alleges that J.A.H. received the rotavirus vaccination on September 19, 2018 and 

developed intussusception as a result requiring surgical intervention. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa (2012).
2

On January 3, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent concluded that J.A.H.’s intussusception manifested

between one and twenty-one days after his receipt of the rotavirus vaccine and there is 

not preponderant evidence that his condition was due to a factor unrelated to the 

vaccine. Id. at 3. Respondent further agrees that J.A.H.’s intussusception resulted in 

inpatient hospitalization and surgical intervention. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
1

Mears, Gilbert

From: Karen Bernard <kbsweethome@gmail.com>

Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:20 PM

To: Mears, Gilbert

Subject: Docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 

Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Mr. Mears, 

In reference to 

 

 docket #: EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281 

I am very concerned about the health of our United States--land and people alike--and request that you do all in 

your power to close the TRI loophole that the oil and gas industry currently uses.

Sincerely, 

Karen Bernard 

1829 Middle Road 

Glenshaw PA 15116
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,328,412
<SECURITIES>                                12,030,994
<RECEIVABLES>                                  451,360
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,329,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,451,600
<PP&E>                                       3,293,135
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,360,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,510,754
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,541,865
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,910
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,313,526
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,510,754
<SALES>                                        435,406
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               435,406
<CGS>                                        1,093,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,093,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,506,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,902
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,302,871)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,302,871)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.37)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.37)
        

</TABLE>
#### COMMONWEALTH v. AVERITT.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Aug. 27, 1951.

A. E. Funk, Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry G. Boldrick, Lebanon, Ernest Fulton, Bardstown, R. H. Cannon, Leitchfield, for appellant.

Robert M. Spragens, Lebanon, Joseph Polin, Springfield, for appellee.

'CLAY, Commissioner.

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the Circuit Court overruling its motions for a change of venue and to summon a jury from an adjoining county in a homicide case. A former trial was held in Marion County (wherein the crime was allegedly committed) resulting in a hung jury.

In support of its motions, the Commonwealth filed several affidavits. The Commonwealth’s attorney stated that in his opinion the state could not have a fair trial with a jury from Marion County for these reasons: a great deal of publicity had been given to the case; a large crowd of people attended the examining trial and the former jury trial; it was necessary to examine 113 prospective ju-ors to obtain 12 at the first trial; and *990the defendant’s family has widespread influence in the county.

The County attorney stated: a great number of people had attended the examining trial and the first trial; there was difficulty obtaining jurors because they had knowledge of the case or had formed an opinion; and because of the wide personal acquaintance of the defendant’s family and the publicity, it would be impossible to obtain a jury from Marion County. The affidavits of others, were to the same effect; and the defendant filed affidavits supporting the opposite conclusion.

The granting or refusing of a change of venue is within the broad discretion of the trial court, and great weight is given to his judgment on this matter. Only where he abuses his discretion will this Court intervene. Benge v. Commonwealth, 296 Ky. 82, 176 S.W.2d 131. We do not believe the matters set forth in the affidavits offered for the Commonwealth present an unusual situation or one which necessarily would call for a change of venue. . While it is apparent that some difficulty has been and will be experienced in obtaining a jury from Marion County, the trial Court in his memorandum opinion set forth satisfactory reasons why the trial should not be transferred to another county. We find no abuse of discretion on this issue.

While the trial Court overruled the Commonwealth’s motion for an order requiring a jury to be summoned from another county, he reserved this question for further consideration, and we think he properly did so. This matter has not been finally determined, and since Section 194 of the Criminal Code authorizes him to summon a jury from an adjoining county if it appears practicable for the purpose of obtaining impartial jurors, we think his interlocutory ruling on this motion did not constitute error.

Finding no abuse of discretion, in our opinion the action of the trial Court in overruling the motions was proper, and the law is so certified.
**Exhibit 13.1**

----

**Certification****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002****(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of United Utilities PLC, an English public limited company (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2006 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated:        June 15,  2006 | /s/ Philip Green    |
|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|                                                  | Philip Nevill Green |
|                                                  | Chief Executive     |

| Dated:        June 15, 2006 | /s/ Simon Batey        |
|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                                 | Simon George Batey     |
|                                                 | Group Finance Director |

----
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-2 Filed 04/08/23 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1905
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-2 Filed 04/08/23 Page 2 of 5 PageID 1906
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-2 Filed 04/08/23 Page 3 of 5 PageID 1907
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-2 Filed 04/08/23 Page 4 of 5 PageID 1908
Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 86-2 Filed 04/08/23 Page 5 of 5 PageID 1909
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). I H / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J E S US B AL T AZ ARR AMI R E Z - L E ON , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 72765 A ge nc yN o. A 070- 737- 439 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A pr i l5, 2010 ** B e f o r e : R Y M E R , M c K E O W N , an dP A E Z , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . J e s us B a l t a z arR a m i r e z - L e on, ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l f r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f ora dj us tm e ntof 

# FI LED APR16 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSI H / Res ea r ch 07- 72765 2 s t a tus . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on pur s uantt o 8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w de novo q u e s tio n s o f

law , V a s q u ez - Za v a la v . A s h c r o ft , 32 4 F . 3d 11 05 , 11 07 (9th C i r. 20 03 ), a n dwe d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B I A pr ope r l yde ni e d R a m i r e z - L e on’ s appl i c a t i on f orr e l i e f be c aus e he f a ile dto d e p art w ith in th e v o lu n taryd e p artu r e p e r io da f te rr e c e iv in g a d e q u a te n o tic e o f th e p e n a ltie s f

o rf a ilu r e to d o s o . See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9c(d)( 1)(B ) ( fa i l ure to d e p a rt v o lu n tar ilyw ith in th e tim e p e r io dr e s u lts in ate n - y e arb arto c e rta in f o rm s o f r e lie f , in c lu d in g a d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s ) ; D e M

a r tin ezv . A s h c r o

ft , 374 F . 3d 75 9, 76 2 (9th C i r. 20 04 ) ( B IA ’ s w ri tt en no t i ce of the penal t i es for f ai l ure t o d epart i s a dequ at e und er8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9c(d)) . R am i re z- L eon’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are no tpers uasi ve. P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Approved Tribal-State Compact. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. § 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Amended Gaming Compact between the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe and the State of South Dakota, which was executed on August 24, 2000.                     

# DATES:

This action is effective November 8, 2000. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066. 

Dated: October 25, 2000. 

Kevin Gover, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 00-28587 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-02-P