alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-02-0272-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

AUGUST 23, 2002

______________________________

BOBBY J. CATE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-436,240; HON. BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Appellant, Bobby J. Cate appeals from a judgment convicting him of aggravated

sexual assault. The clerk’s record is due in this cause, and an extension of the applicable

deadline was sought. To justify the extension, the district clerk represented that appellant

has not paid or made arrangements to pay for the record. The reporter’s record has been

filed in this cause. Nothing of record appears showing the appellant is indigent and entitled

to a free record. 
2

Accordingly, we now abate this appeal and remand the cause to the 364th District

Court of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court

shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a hearing

to determine the following: 

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 

2. whether appellant is indigent; and,

3. whether the appellant is entitled to a free appellate record due to his indigency.

The trial court shall cause the hearing to be transcribed. So too shall it 1) execute findings

of fact and conclusions of law addressing the foregoing issues, 2) cause to be developed

a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions of law and all

orders it may issue as a result of its hearing on this matter, and 3) cause to be developed

a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and arguments presented at the

aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the district court shall then file the supplemental

record with the clerk of this court on or before September 23, 2002. Should further time

be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then same must be requested before

September 23, 2002.

 It is so ordered. 

 Per Curiam 

Do not publish.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MATTHEW WARE, §

Tarrant County Jail No. 0647148, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00600-O-BP 

 §

WENDYS, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

(ECF No. 27) in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation 

is ripe for review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is dismissed 

without prejudice.

SO ORDERED on this 20th day of April, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00600-O Document 29 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 148
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Image Sensing Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, James Murdakes, Chief Executive 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) 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 Company.




/s/   James MurdakesJames Murdakes
Chief Executive Officer
May 10, 2007






---
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

Reference is hereby made tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1, 2015, by andamong WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES,INC., as Depositor, WELLSFARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, ADIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHASURVEILLANCE LLC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asCertificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTONTRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C28 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities ofthe Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31,2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per theAgreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and

 

2. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of itsobligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-312-Y 

 § 

DALE TAYLOR JR. (2) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on 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. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED November 21, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00312-Y Document 37 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 82
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

MICHAEL LEE THOMPSON, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-806-O-BP 

 § 

CALVIN BAESTO BEATTY, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

 §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ripe for 

review. The District Judge reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the Findings and 

Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without 

prejudice.

SO ORDERED on this 17th day of August, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00806-O Document 36 Filed 08/17/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 152
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),                as                applicable, 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                at the dates and for the periods indicated. |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:                May 6, 2008 | /s/                Guo Yan                                  |
|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Guo                Yan                                      |
|                             | Chief                Financial Officer                      |
|                             | (Principal                Financial and Accounting Officer) |

----
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.

 November 25, 2013

h1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147677

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147677

COA: 316724

Allegan CC: 12-017739-FC

JAMES OLIVER MACKECHNIE, II,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 17, 2013 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Case 3:22-mj-00884-BK Document 4 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 20
#### SOUTHWEST DAIRY PRODUCTS CO. v. LITTRELL.

No. 12907.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Dallas.

July 27, 1940.

Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Touchstone and James J. Sheerin, all of Dallas, for appellant.

James S. Skinner, of Dallas, for appel-lee.

LOONEY, Justice.

This suit originated in the justice court, was appealed to the county court, from whose judgment this appeal was taken.

In October, 1937, W. F. Littrell entered the service of Southwest Dairy Products Company, as a distributor of its milk, butter, etc., to customers along a certain route in the City of Dallas. Before beginning service with the Company, Littrell was required to deposit $100, as indemnity against loss to the Company, by reason of certain conduct on the part of Littrell. The employment was terminated in January, 1938, after which, Littrell filed this suit to recover the cash deposit; also $37.22, alleged improper deductions from his salary, and $57.66, balance due on salary.-

The Company answered by general denial and a special plea, alleging that the $100 cash deposit was intended as indemnity against such losses as the Company might sustain by reason of broken milk bottles, bottles and products not returned, and the failure of Littrell to collect from customers, accounts properly chargeable to him; contending that, after deducting the amount of losses from the $100 deposit and the amount due Littrell as salary, the company was due him only $28.94, which was tendered, and was followed by being deposited in the registry of court.

The case was tried to a jury and, based upon its verdict, the court rendered judgment against the Company, in favor of Littrell, for the sum of $173, from which this appeal was taken.

Appellant assigns error on the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in its favor, also in excluding certain evidence. These assignments are overruled. Appellant also assigns error on the .refusal of the court to grant its motion for a new trial, based on the ground that, the verdict is excessive and against the great weight and preponderance of the credible evidence.

We sustain the latter assignment. As the case will be reversed and remanded for further proceedings, we refrain from saying more than that, .appellee’s testimony, relied upon exclusively for recovery and, obviously, upon which the verdict of the jury was based, in our opinion, is entire*94ly too contradictory, improbable and inconclusive to warrant a reasonable belief in the existence of the facts essential to recovery, at least in the amount, as found by the jury.

We are not unmindful of the rule that, verdicts should be upheld, if supported by any evidence; yet, after carefully reading the entire statement of facts, and the original documents accompanying same, we could not affirm the judgment without surrendering our intelligence to a mere formula; this, we are not content to do; therefore, without further comment on the evidence, reverse the judgment below and remand the cause for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

CAROLE SCHEIB,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 45 WM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of November, 2021, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.
Order filed, September 12, 2012

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00483

- CR

____________ CHARLES E. WILLIAMS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 25th District Court Colorado County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 11

- 029



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due August 27, 2012

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. The
record has not been filed with the court. Becau se the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Patricia Wagner , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSE LOPEZ

#028524148,

§

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-2404-K (BT) 

§

WARDEN, et al.,

 Respondents.

§

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this 

case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge dated December 21, 2022, the Court finds that the Findings and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Court. IT IS, THEREFORE, 

ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge are accepted. 

SO ORDERED.

Signed January 11th, 2023.

 _____________________________________ 

ED KINKEADE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-02404-K-BT Document 9 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the President to issue a proclamation

Family Week’’.1993, and November 20, 1994, as ‘‘Nationaldesignating the week beginning on November 21,
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 79

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the President to issue a proclamation designating the week beginning on November 21, 1993, and

November 20, 1994, as ‘‘National Family Week’’.

Whereas the family is the basic strength of any free and orderly society;

Whereas it is appropriate to honor the family as a unit essential to the continued well-being of the United States; and

Whereas it is fitting that official recognition be given to the

importance of family loyalties and ties: Now, therefore,

be it
2

HJ 79 EH

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the President is hereby authorized and requested to

4 issue a proclamation designating the week beginning on

5 November 21, 1993, and November 20, 1994 as ‘‘National

6 Family Week’’.

Passed the House of Representatives November 8,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### Andrew Crispo et al., Respondents, v Long Island Lighting Company, Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 3, 1990, which denied defendant’s motion to change venue from New York County to Suffolk County, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ summer home was destroyed as a result of an explosion which occurred on July 22, 1989. Plaintiffs reside in New York County, while defendant’s principal place of business is in Nassau County. Venue was properly placed in New York County where the plaintiffs reside. Defendant moved to change venue to Suffolk County, based upon the convenience of material witnesses pursuant to CPLR 510 (3). Such a motion must be supported by an affidavit that specifies the names and addresses of the witnesses, the essence of their expected testimony and the inconvenience that would be imposed if they were required to testify in the county of original venue *(Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group,*161 AD2d 166; *Weiss v Saks Fifth Ave.,*157 AD2d 475; *Rosa v Shavelson,*149 AD2d 371). Here, both plaintiffs and defendant have submitted the names of numerous prospective witnesses who reside in various locations. Taking into account the fact that numerous witnesses who reside in Suffolk County also have either residences or places of business in Manhattan, and in view of the numerous material witnesses who have no connection with *213Suffolk County, it cannot be said that defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that the convenience of material witnesses will be served by a change in venue. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 78

Designating the weeks beginning May 23, 1993, and May 15, 1994, as

‘‘Emergency Medical Services Week’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 1993

Mr. MANTON introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

JOINT RESOLUTION

Designating the weeks beginning May 23, 1993, and May

15, 1994, as ‘‘Emergency Medical Services Week’’.

Whereas emergency medical services is a vital public service;

Whereas access to quality emergency care dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury;

Whereas efforts to establish emergency medicine as a medical

specialty began 25 years ago with the founding of the

American College of Emergency Physicians in 1968;
2

•HJ 78 IH

Whereas the members of emergency medical services teams

are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24

hours a day, 7 days a week;

Whereas emergency medical services teams consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical

technicians, paramedics, firefighters, educators, administrators, and others;

Whereas approximately 2⁄3 of all emergency medical services

providers are volunteers;

Whereas the members of emergency medical services teams,

whether career or volunteer, engage in thousands of

hours of specialized training and continuing education to

enhance their lifesaving skills;

Whereas Americans benefit daily from the knowledge and

skills of these highly trained individuals;

Whereas it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers

by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and

Whereas the designation of Emergency Medical Services

Week will serve to educate all Americans about injury

prevention and how to respond to a medical emergency:

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 weeks beginning May 23, 1993, and May 15,

4 1994, are designated as ‘‘Emergency Medical Services

5 Week’’ and the President is authorized and requested to

6 issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United
3

•HJ 78 IH

1 States to observe such weeks with appropriate ceremonies

2 and activities.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00326-L

§

GARRETT DEJUAN HENDERSON VANZANDT 

(9)

§

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

GARRETT DEJUAN HENDERSON VANZANDT, 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(s) 19 of the Superseding Indictment After cautioning and examining GARRETT DEJUAN HENDERSON 

VANZANDT under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea(s) was

knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense(s) charged is supported by an independent basis in fact containing each 

of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea(s) of guilty be accepted, and that GARRETT 

DEJUAN HENDERSON VANZANDT be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, 

namely Possession With the Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Aiding and Abetting 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: 21st day of December, 2023

 ______________________________________ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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 3:22-cr-00326-L Document 366 Filed 12/21/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1100
Case 4:22-cr-00034-O Document 82 Filed 02/15/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 251
Case 4:22-cr-00034-O Document 82 Filed 02/15/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 252
Case 4:22-cr-00034-O Document 82 Filed 02/15/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 253