alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HUCKMAN et al. v. CAMPBELL.

No. 12491.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 8, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1952.

Kemp, Lewright, Dyer & Sorrell, Walter Groce, Corpus Christi, for -appellants.

R. E. Schneider, Jr., George West, Leo N. Duran, Corpus Christi, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants on September 20, 1952, filed a motion asking that this Court direct our clerk to file a statement of facts herein as . of August 25, 1952.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Live Oak County, Texas, overruling appellants’ plea of privilege entered on August 7, 1952. Under the provisions of Rule 385, Sec. (b), Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, appellants had until August 27, 1952, within which to file the record in this Court.

On August 25, 1952, the Clerk of this Court received through the United States Mail a purported transcript and statement of facts in this cause. The transcript was in due form and was immediately filed by the Clerk, but on examination of the purported statement of facts he found that it was neither approved by the trial court nor agreed to by the attorneys in the case. See Rule 377(d), T.R.C.P.

The Clerk -made a memorandum upon the statement of facts of the date of its reception and immediately telephoned -the office of appellants’ attorneys, telling a secretary who answered the phone that he had received the statement of facts, but that he could not file it because it was not properly approved. Appellants made no motion for an enlargement of time within which to file the statement of facts, nor did’ they tender here a properly authenticated statement of facts until some time after the lapse of the twenty days period allowed by the provisions of Rule 385, T.R.C.P., for *605the filing of the same, and until after the lapse of the five days period allowed for the filing of a motion for an enlargement of the time.

Under such circumstances, we are without jurisdiction to now permit the filing of such statement of facts. Rules 5, 385, T. R.C.P.; Jaeger v. Cullen, Tex.Civ.App., 183 S.W.2d 584; Parsons v. West, Tex. Civ.App., 159 S.W.2d 224; Matlock v. Matlock, Tex.Sup., 249 S.W.2d 587; Hidalgo County Water Control &, Improvement Dist. No. 1 v. Van Horn, 125 Tex. 486, 84 S.W.2d 699.

Appellants cite the case of Pacific Fire Insurance Company v. Smith, 145 Tex. 482, 199 S.W.2d 486, as supporting their motion. The facts in that case are quite different; There the clerk actually filed the unauthorized statement of facts and appellee waived his right to have it stricken by his failure to file a motion to strike, as is required by Rule 404, T.R.C.P.

The motion is overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          65,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,484,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (132,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 30,203,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,250,000
<PP&E>                                       7,667,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,338,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              42,635,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,888,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,302,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                42,635,000
<SALES>                                      7,750,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,750,000
<CGS>                                        5,605,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,605,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,506,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             220,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                458,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   189,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   269,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7375
JOHN PAUL TURNER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-131-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying (1) his motion to reopen a prior decision denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and (2) his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district court's orders and find no reversibleerror. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v. Kuykendall , No. CA-96-131-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 26350.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1953.

No attorney on a-ppéal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of beer, wine and whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, the jury having assessed the punishment at six months in jail and a fine of $500.

The record contains no notice of appeal, in the absence of which we are without jurisdiction to enter any order except to dismiss the appeal. See Baiz v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 245 S.W.2d 250.

The appeal is' dismissed.
Take notice that on January 28, 2000, Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company, whose mailing address is 3170 17th Street, Suite 2750, Denver, Colorado 80202, filed in Docket No. CP96-684-001, a request seeking that the Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit held in the name of its predecessor company, Interenergy Sheffield Processing Company, be changed to recognize its company's reorganization and change in its corporate name, all as more fully set forth in the filing which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.

Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. states that in 1997 a Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit were granted in the above captioned proceeding to Interenergy Sheffield Processing Company (Interenergy Sheffield), a general partnership between Bear Paw Energy Inc. and Interenergy Corporation. These authorizations permitted Interenergy Sheffield, an otherwise non-jurisdictional natural gas gathering and processing system, to construct and operate natural gas facilities at the International Boundary line near Portal, North Dakota, to import gas from Canada. Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. also states that, in 1998, Bear Paw Energy Inc. became the sole and direct owner of the gathering and processing system and the border crossing facilities. In the present filing, Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. informs the Commission that, as of January 20, 2000, Bear Paw Energy Inc. was merged into a Delaware limited liability company, with its ultimate name change to Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. states that these transactions do not, in any way, alter the operation of the gathering and processing system or the border crossing facilities.

Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. requests that the Commission modify its records in the above captioned proceeding to reflect the final name change, such that the Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit previously granted to Interenergy Sheffield will hereafter be in the name of Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. In the alternative, Bear Paw Energy, L.L.C. requests that a new Section 3 authorization and Presidential Permit be granted in its own name.

Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with reference to said filing should, on or before, February 22, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20426, a protest or motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rule 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All protests filed with the Commission will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make the Protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-2886 Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,387,056
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         629,532
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,209,328  
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 15,548,743
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      10,405,090
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        10,468,978
<LOANS>                                    115,264,564
<ALLOWANCE>                                    733,547
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             152,795,506
<DEPOSITS>                                 118,294,743
<SHORT-TERM>                                10,500,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,329,063
<LONG-TERM>                                          0   
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,250,356
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,421,344
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             152,795,506
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              6,761,795
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,057,526
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               144,286
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,963,607
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,140,251
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,495,089
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,468,518
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   15,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,372,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,377,085
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,552,585
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,552,585
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.37
<LOANS-NON>                                    813,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               718,547
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              733,547
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           733,547
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT “BOB” ROSS AND 

EUGENIO VARGAS, 

Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, 

v.

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, MCGAUGHEY, 

REBER AND ASSOCIATES, INC., 

JULIE HEDRICK, and ERIK HARRIS, 

Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

No. 4:22-CV-343-Y 

Consolidated with 

No. 4:22-CV-430-Y 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

By this notice, in accordance with the Court’s Order dated September 19, 2024 [Doc. 255], 

Cortney C. Thomas and C. Alan Carrillo of the law firm of Brown Fox PLLC enter their 

appearance and provide notice that they are representing Plaintiffs Robert “Bob” Ross and 

Eugenio Vargas as counsel in the above-entitled and numbered cause of action and request that all 

notices be sent to them at the following address: 

Cortney C. Thomas 

C. Alan Carrillo 

BROWN FOX PLLC 

8111 Preston Road, Suite 300 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Telephone: (214) 327-5000 

Facsimile: (214) 327-5001 

Email: cort@brownfoxlaw.com

Email: alan@brownfoxlaw.com

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 256 Filed 10/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 8594
2 

Dated: October 16, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Cortney C. Thomas 

Cortney C. Thomas 

 Texas Bar No. 24075153 

cort@brownfoxlaw.com 

C. Alan Carrillo 

 Texas Bar No. 24109693 

alan@brownfoxlaw.com

BROWN FOX PLLC 

8111 Preston Road, Suite 300 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Telephone: (214) 327-5000 

Facsimile: (214) 327-5001 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert “Bob” Ross 

and Eugenio Vargas 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(1)(B), as amended, no certificate of service is necessary 

because this document is being filed with the Court’s electronic-filing system. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 256 Filed 10/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 8595
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 15

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor

of Louis ‘‘Satchmo’’ Armstrong.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. CONYERS submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage

stamp in honor of Louis ‘‘Satchmo’’ Armstrong.

Whereas Louis ‘‘Satchmo’’ Armstrong overcame great poverty and social disadvantage to become an internationally

renowned musician;

Whereas Louis Armstrong, a symbol of twentieth century

American culture, was substantially responsible for the

popularity of jazz, which is both an American art form

and a National treasure;

Whereas the unique creative talent and innovative

improvisational style of Louis Armstrong transformed

jazz and inspired generations of jazz musicians;
2

HJ 15 IH

Whereas Louis Armstrong was undoubtedly the greatest horn

player of his day, as well as one of the leading trumpet

players of all time and one of America’s foremost musical

ambassadors;

Whereas Louis Armstrong has influenced more horn players

than any other musician in the history of jazz, and this

influence has helped perpetuate the art form of jazz;

Whereas the accomplishments of Louis Armstrong as a musical and technical virtuoso on the trumpet were a milestone in the evolution of jazz-form ensemble ragtime into

an interpretive musical art;

Whereas Louis Armstrong, as an African-American musician,

made groundbreaking advances in the integration of the

performing arts during a career which lasted over five

decades; and

Whereas the unwavering dedication of Louis Armstrong to

his craft serves as an inspiration for all Americans and

a reminder of the important contributions of AfricanAmericans to American culture: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the Postmaster General shall issue a commemorative

4 postage stamp in honor of Louis ‘‘Satchmo’’ Armstrong.

5 Such a stamp shall be issued and sold for such period as

6 the Postmaster General shall determine.

Æ
<page> EXHIBIT 32.02




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Morgan Stanley
Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I,
Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  /s/Christian Angstadt

Name:	   Christian Angstadt
Title	:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:	   November 14, 2008
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SIMCALA INC. FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          17,462<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,460
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,811
<PP&E>                                          58,196
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,340
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,298
<BONDS>                                         81,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        18,807
<OTHER-SE>                                      (7,004)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,828
<SALES>                                         12,209
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,209
<CGS>                                           11,079
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,079
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (213)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (929)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (929)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Of this amount, 6,460 was Restricted Cash
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00072-Z-BR

§

DALVIN DEVONTA LUCKEY (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

DALVIN DEVONTA LUCKEY (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining DALVIN DEVONTA LUCKEY (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned 

in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by 

an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea 

of guilty be accepted, and that DALVIN DEVONTA LUCKEY (1) be adjudged guilty of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 

924(a)(2) - CONVICTED FELON IN POSSESSION OF AMMUNITION and have sentence imposed accordingly. After 

being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: February 1, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00072-Z-BR Document 42 Filed 02/01/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 89