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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUBBOCKDIVISION

LINITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 5:22-CR-038-01-H

UBALDO SALAZAR BARRIENTOS,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE UMTED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

$ 636(b)(l), the undersigrred District Judge is ofthe opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED.

11

Dated September .2022.

JAMES SLEY HENDRIX

T]NITE STATES DISTRICT ruDGE

w*ft>

Case 5:22-cr-00038-H-BQ Document 26 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 97
(a)  A review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 4, 2015 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2015-A Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2016 has been made under my supervision.
 
 (b)  To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.
 
  
 By: /s/ Wei Shi
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 21, 2020. 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 21, 2020 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21I0045. JENNIFER FOLEY AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF REBECCA FOLEY et al. v. MARSH COVE APARTMENTS, LLC et al.
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: STCV190002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM FORM 10-Q FOR THE 3 MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S.
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS                               
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1996
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                       1
<CASH>                                       23,134,587
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 5,340,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                    848,227
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             40,167,777
<PP&E>                                        2,939,551
<DEPRECIATION>                                  957,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               43,969,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        42,054,365
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         21,002
<OTHER-SE>                                    1,894,017
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 43,969,384
<SALES>                                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             51,906,731
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                43,128,221
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,893
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,963,505)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        515
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,964,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,964,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.41)
        


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

                    Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's Board of Directors will meet in closed session, pursuant to sections 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8),                           ( print page 66755)                        (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of Title 5, United States Code, to consider matters relating to the Corporation's receivership and supervisory activities.                

The meeting will be held in the Board Room on the sixth floor of the FDIC Building located at 550—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC

Requests for further information concerning the meeting may be directed to Mr. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary of the Corporation, at (202) 898-6757.

Dated: November 3, 2000.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-28604 Filed 11-3-00; 11:21 am]

BILLING CODE 6714-01-M
# FILED January 30, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
VICKIE DIANNE TUTTLE, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ) ) Coffee Circuit VS. ) No. 1883D ) ) Appeal No. ROBERT EDWARD TUTTLE, ) 01A01-9512-CV-00546 ) Defendant/Appel

lant. ) 

## O R D E R Thi s a ppeal involves a conte sted divorce procee ding in which one of the litigants is an incarcerate d felon. We filed

ou r opinion affirming the trial court on October 10, 1997 based only on our consideration of the record and the husband’s brief because the wife did not file a brief and made no other appearance of any sort on this appeal. On December

23 , 1997, Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer mailed a letter to the three members of the panel explaining his r ole in the litigation c

ourt and taking issue

with portion of

the opinion stating that “any technical defect resulting from Ms. Tuttle’s counsel’s failure to comply w ith Tenn
. Code Ann. § 36-4-107 (a) is of no consequence.” Ms. T uttle’s lawyer as serts that he was no t responsible for the contents of Ms. Tuttle’s complaint because he was not repre sen ting her when the complaint

was filed. We will treat Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer’s letter as a late-filed petition for rehearing. Even though the lette r was not filed wi

thin ten days of the

entry of our opinion, we have determine d that the unusual circ

umstances surrounding

this appeal warrant altering the portion of our October 10, 1997 opinion referring to counsel’s failure to comply wit h Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-4-1 07(a). Itis, therefore,

ordered that the cl

erk file the Dec

ember 23, 1997 lette

r and mail a copy of the letter to

Mr. Tuttle since

the letter bears n

o indication

that hehas been provided with a cop y.-2- If is further ordere

d that page

5 of the October 10,

1997 opinion

be withdrawn and replaced with t

he revised page 5 att

ached hereto. Itis further ordered that Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer, having entered the case as counsel of record, remains Ms. Tuttle’s lawyer for all purposes, even if he is represent ing Ms. Tuttlepro bono, unless he is formally relieved of his responsibilities by proper court order. ENTER, this __

__ day of January, 199 8.

__________________________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

__________________________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE

__________________________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE
#### McCOY v. STATE.

No. 25201.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1951.

No attorney, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

On a plea of guilty before the court, a jury being waived, appellant was adjudged guilty of passing a forge.d instrument with intent to defraud and his punishment assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

The record contains no bills of exception and no statement of facts.

The proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### WATSON v. STATE.

No. 25609.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal fór appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge'

The appeal is from a judgment revoking probation.

No statement of facts or bills of exception accompany the record.

We are without jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal because of the absence of a sentence in the record.

State’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted.
#### STONE v. STATE.

No. 22041.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 1, 1942.

Wallace Malone, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of twenty years.

The record is before this court without bills of exception or statement of facts. The indictment and all matters of procedure appear regular.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 198 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 198

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 Providing for an adjournment of the House from Wednesday, January 26, 
                   1994 to Tuesday, February 1, 1994.






103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 198

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, January 26, 1994, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, February 1, 1994.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 25, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.`
#### SHELLEY v. STATE.

No. 21519.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 26, 1941.

Ralph Gibbons, of Houston, for appellant (on appeal).

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is burglary. The indictment embraced averments showing that appellant had theretofore been twice convicted of felonies less than capital. Because of repetition of offenses, the punishment was assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.

Appellant gave notice of appeal on the 22nd day of July, 1940. The statement of facts was not filed in the trial court until January 21, 1941, which was approximately *102seven months after notice of appeal was given. This was too late.

No bills of exception are brought forward.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 1 of 9 PageID 5
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 2 of 9 PageID 6
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 3 of 9 PageID 7
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 4 of 9 PageID 8
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 5 of 9 PageID 9
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 6 of 9 PageID 10
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 7 of 9 PageID 11
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 8 of 9 PageID 12
Case 3:22-cv-00940-B Document 3 Filed 04/27/22 Page 9 of 9 PageID 13
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2006-23706 Directorate Identifier: 2006-NE-03-AD 

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

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

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) 

Do not include oncondition costs here 

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

propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours 

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up) 

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our) 

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts) 

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet 

Initial inspection 8.0 $ 680.00 $498 $1,178.00 2,250 $2,650,500.0

0

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Repetitive 

inspection #1 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $498 $1,858.00 1,125 $2,090,250.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Repetitive 

inspection #2 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $498 $1,858.00 562 $1,044,196.0

0

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

Repetitive 

inspection #3 16.0 $1,360.0

0 $498 $1,858.00 281 $522,098.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $6,307,044 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs:

Action 

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement) 

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup) 

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour) 

Parts Cost Cost per Product 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

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): Total fleet costs
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 161 Received in Senate (RDS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 161

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 7 (legislative day, September 27), 1993

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for an adjournment of the House from Thursday, October 7, 
  1993 or Friday, October 8, 1993 to Tuesday, October 12, 1993 and an 
 adjournment or recess of the Senate from Thursday, October 7, 1993 to 
                      Wednesday, October 13, 1993.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on Thursday, October 7, 1993 or Friday, 
October 8, 1993, pursuant to a motion made by the Majority Leader or 
his designee, it stand adjourned until noon on Tuesday, October 12, 
1993, or until noon on the second day after Members are notified to 
reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or adjourns 
at the close of business on Thursday, October 7, 1993, pursuant to a 
motion made by the Majority Leader or his designee, in accordance with 
this resolution, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
Wednesday, October 13, 1993, or at such time as may be specified by the 
Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or 
until noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1993.

            Attest:

                                           DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28724]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION


Office of Communications/Department of Defense; Construction 
Cancellation of Stocked Standard Form

AGENCY: General Services Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Because of low usage the 4-part continuous, carbon interleave 
set construction of the following Standard Form is cancelled: SF 153, 
COMSEC Material Report (NSN 7540-00-935-5861).
    The 4-part continuous feed, chemical transfer paper set version 
(identified by NSN 7540-00-935-5860) of this form is still available 
from FSS.

DATES: Effective November 9, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services 
Administration, (202) 501-0581.

    Dated: October 17, 2000.
Barbara M. Williams,
Deputy, Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28724 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
#### POWELL v. STATE.

No. 24111.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 20, 1948.

No appearance for appellant. .

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was convicted for having in his possesssion whiskey in a container to which no tax stamp showing that the tax on said beverage had been paid, was attached, and his punishment was assessed at a fine of $100.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exception. In such condition, nothing is presented for review and judgment is affirmed.
#### EDWARDS v. STATE.

No. 24441.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1949.

None on appeal, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of failure to stop and render aid, and was assessed a penalty of one year in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception and without a statement of facts. We are unable to determine the grounds upon which reversal is sought.

While the jury’s verdict assessed a penalty of one year in the penitentiary, the court failed to follow this in his judgment in that the punishment is fixed in the penitentiary “ * * * for a term of not less than one day nor more than one years.” The judgment is improper in that it attempts to apply the indeterminate sentence law. Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art 775. It should have read “for one year.”

In passing sentence the court properly applied the indeterminate sentence law. In recording the order we find this language, “The said Johnnie Edwards shall be confined in said penitentiaries for a term of not more than one year nor more than one day years, * * The sentence is reformed so as to substitute, in lieu of the foregoing quoted language, the following: The said Johnnie Edwards shall be confined in said penitentiary for a term of not less than one day nor more than one year.

As reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
* 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. 01-40898

Conference Calendar

 

DENNIS MITCHELL KADLEC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ROY TONY GARCIA, Warden, Coffield

Unit; UNIDENTIFIED MALONE, Sergeant, 

Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED HUDSON, Correctional 

Officer, Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED RANDALL, 

Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit; UNIDENTIFIED 

MALICHI, Correctional Officer, Coffield Unit,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CV-688

- - - - - - - - - -

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Dennis Mitchell Kadlec, Texas prisoner # 791082, appeals

from the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies. Kadlec has failed to brief this issue, as he has

provided neither argument nor authorities to show that the

district court erred in dismissing his suit. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Fed. R. App. P.
No. 01-40898

-2-

28(a)(9). The appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983). Because this appeal lacks merit, it is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2.

This dismissal of Kadlec’s appeal as frivolous counts as a

“strike” for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Additionally,

Kadlec garnered one “strike” when a previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983

suit was dismissed by the district court as frivolous. See

Kadlec v. Garcia, No. 01-40455 (5th Cir., July 30, 2001). Kadlec

also garnered one “strike” when a previous 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit

was dismissed by the district court as frivolous and for failure

to state a claim. See Kadlec v. Officer Hanes, No. 6:00-CV-435

(E.D. Tex., Jan. 8, 2001). Kadlec thus has at least three

“strikes.” Accordingly, Kadlec is BARRED from proceeding IFP in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.