alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jeff Fisher, Individually and Derivatively through Blavesco, 

Limited, Independence Construction & Financing Co., 1776 

American Properties IV, L.L.C., 1776 American Properties V, 

L.L.C., 1776 American Properties VI, L.L.C., 1776 American 

Properties VII, L.L.C., 1776 American Properties VIII, L.L.C., 

Staunton Street Partners, L.L.C, APRF SP1-1, L.L.C., 

Hazelwood Management Services, L.L.C., Arica Lane, L.L.C., 

Austin Road Partners, L.L.C., Hazelwood Brownstone, L.L.C., 

Highridge Management Services, L.L.C., High Ridge Beltway 8 

Management Services, L.L.C., Reims Holding, L.L.C., Rybar 

Holdings, L.L.C. and Worldwide Property Group, Inc. v. 

Heather Carlile, Individually and on behalf of Blavesco Limited

Appellate case number: 01-16-00615-CV

Trial court case number: 2016-39514

Trial court: 11th District Court of Harris County

Appellee, Heather Carlile, Individually and on behalf of Blavesco Limited, has filed 

an “Unopposed Motion to Appeal Further Interlocutory Order and Motion for Extension of

Time to Supplement Appellate Record and File Brief.” Carlile requests that the Court 

review the November 16, 2016 Amended Order Granting Temporary Injunction, 

representing that it supersedes the trial court’s July 28, 2016 Order Granting Temporary 

Injunction and “is a further appealable interlocutory order concerning the same subject 

matter.” Carlile also requests an extension of time to (1) supplement the clerk’s record with 

the November 16, 2016 amended order and the reporter’s record with a reporter’s record of 

the November 16, 2016 hearing, and (2) file her appellee’s brief. Carlile requests an 

extension of five days after the filing of the supplemental clerk’s record and reporter’s 

record.

The motion is granted in part and dismissed in part. Carlile’s request “to have the 

Court review the Amended Order as part of this appeal” is granted. See TEX. R. APP. P.

27.3, 29.6; Tanguy v. Laux, 259 S.W.3d 851, 855 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no 
pet.) (citations omitted). Carlile’s motion indicates that she has requested that the district 

clerk prepare and file a supplemental clerk’s record and the court reporter prepare and file a 

supplemental reporter’s record. Accordingly, Carlile’s request for an extension of time to 

supplement the clerk’s record and reporter’s record is dismissed as moot. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 34.5(c)(1), (3), 34.6(d); cf. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(b)(1), 34.6(b)(3). Finally, Carlile filed 

her “Brief of Appellee” on November 23, 2016. Her request for an extension of time to file 

her appellee’s brief, therefore, is dismissed as moot. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Russell Lloyd

  Acting individually 

Date: December 1, 2016
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Rachel Lynn Howell, Appellant

No. 06-16-00173-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law of 

Rockwall County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR14-1043). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the motion of the appellant to 

dismiss the appeal should be granted. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant, Rachel Lynn Howell, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED NOVEMBER 29, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 5, 2016

No. 04-15-00721-CR

Jimmy James BRITE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR1419

Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Appellant was represented by appointed counsel in this appeal. On November 2, 2016, 

we issued our opinion and judgment affirming the trial court’s judgment. Appellant, pro se, has 

filed a motion for a free copy of the appellate record. “[N]othing in the United States 

Constitution, the Texas Constitution, or any statute or rule requires the convicting county to

provide a free copy of the trial record to an appellant for purposes of filing a pro se petition of 

discretionary review.” Ex parte Trainer, 181 S.W.3d 358, 359 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Accordingly, we deny the motion.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of December, 2016.
___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
December 12, 2012

Mr. Michael O’Donnell Director, Office of Airport Safety and Standards Room 621 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20591 mike.o’donnell @faa.gov

RE: Request for Extension of Comment Period for Clarification of Wildlife Hazard Management Requirements for Non

- Certificated Federally Obligated Airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport S ystems (NPIAS) , Docket No. FAA

- 2012

- 1306

Dear Mr. O’Donnell:

The American Association of Airport Executives (AAAE) respectfully requests a thirty

- day extension of the comment period for the Notice 2012

- 29591, Clarification of Wildlife Hazard Management Requirements for Non

- Certificated Federally Obligated Airports in the National Plan of Integrated Airport S ystems (NPIAS) (the Notice), which was published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2012.

Founded in 1928, AAAE is the world's largest professional organization for airport executives, representing thousands of airport management personnel at public

- use commercial and general aviation airports. AAAE’s nearly 5,000 individual members include some 3,000 airport professionals representing nearly 850 different airports, from large hubs to general aviation facilit ies. Our members, in particular our general aviation airport members, who accept Airport Improve funding, will face new significant requirements under the proposed notice.

AAAE and our member airports are reviewing the Notice to underst and the implication s. We share the FAA’s mission and commitment to aviation safety and feel it is important that we take time to prepare thoughtful and construction comments. We believe that an extension in the comment period is necessary for the following reasons:

(1) Time is needed for industry to evaluate both the safety risk reduction benefits and costs associated with the proposed changes. We note that this information does not appear in within the Notice and respectfully request that the FAA provide such information, whic h should have been developed in accordance with the FAA’s internal airport safety management system policies (i.e., FAA Order 5200.11).2

(2) The Notice needs to be reviewed in conjunction with other key guidance documents, particularly just

- released draft FAA A dvisory Circular 150/5200

- 33C, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants Near Airports which comment period closes January 31, 2013.

(3) The comment period

— which extends from December 10, 2012, to January 9, 2013

— occurs during a time period that is extremely busy for the airports who will have a key role in reviewing the notice.

AAAE appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Notice and looks forward to providing the FAA with meaningful comments regarding it on behalf of our members

. We also appreciate the collaborati ve relationship with have with the FAA on important matters of safety and to maximize needed industry participation on this important matter , we respectfully request that FAA grant the thirty

- day extension of the comment period.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

Melissa Sabatine Vice President, Regulatory Affairs AAAE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULES 3.5 AND 8.2

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF 

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

:

:

:

:

:

NO. 148

DISCIPLINARY RULES

DOCKET 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5

th day of December, 2016, upon the recommendation of the 

Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania; the proposal to amend 

Pa.R.P.C. 3.5 and 8.2 having been published for comment in the Pennsylvania Bulletin, 

46 Pa.B. 4820 (August 6, 2016):

It is ORDERED pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of 

Pennsylvania that Rules 3.5 and 8.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct are amended

in the attached form.

This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall 

be effective in 30 days.

Additions to the rules are in bold and are underlined.

Deletions from the rules are shown in bold and brackets.
TS-F C12NT

Attachment No. 001

PMN Page 4 Section I.B.1.d and .e (Chemical Identity Information)

Chemical Identity Information:

[

] 

### ** COMPANY SANITIZED **
[Crim. No. 1804.

First Appellate District, Division Two.

June 13, 1934.]

#### In the Matter of the Application of RAYMOND G. KOLBE for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Marcus L. Samuels, Thomas Pierce Rogers and William E. Kidd for Petitioner.

Leo A. Cunningham, Matthew Brady, District Attorney, and Leslie C. Gillen, Assistant District Attorney, for Respondent.

STURTEVANT, J.

In this *habeas corpus*proceeding the petitioner claims that he is being unlawfully restrained by the sheriff of the city and county of San Francisco. In that behalf he asserts that by an order of the municipal court of said city he has been held to answer on a charge of violating the Corporate Securities Act. (2 Deering’s Gen. Laws, Act 3814, p. 1926.)  In this connection it is claimed that there was no reasonable' or probable cause. He states in his petition that there was no evidence that the document which it is claimed he sold was a security under the provisions of the Corporate Secu*240rities Act. He states in bis petition that the transcript of the hearing is incorporated' in his petition as if fully set forth and that it does not show that a crime has been committed nor that the petitioner committed a crime. The transcript of the preliminary hearing is not attached to the petition and has not been brought up; it is merely referred to as above stated. The petition does not purport to set forth the contents of the document which it is claimed he sold nor give any further information of its contents. In due time the sheriff made his return and therein set forth two commitments — one based on a purported sale to Jessie Y. Hare on October 21, 1932, and another based on another purported sale on the fourth day of November, 1932. Assuming that the petition be treated as a traverse to the return it is perfectly clear that the record contains no facts from which this court can determine whether there was or was not evidence of reasonable or probable cause.

It follows that the writ should be discharged. It is so ordered.

Nourse, P. J., and Spence, J., concurred.
Exhibit 4.40

 

Column A

 

Column B

Column C

 

Re: Tax Payables

 

Dear Column D:

 

In connection with that certain Loan Agreement, Equity Pledge Agreement and Exclusive Business Cooperation Agreement entered into among Column B, Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd. (“ML Shopping”) and Mai Wang Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (“ML Trading”) on the date hereof (the “Agreements”), ML Shopping and ML Trading  will jointly and severally reimburse Column B for any and all taxes payable by Column B arising from the transactions contemplated under the Agreements.

 

Sincerely,

 

Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.

 

[seal: Shanghai Mecox Lane Shopping Co., Ltd.]

 

Mai Wang Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

 

[seal: Mai Wang Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.]

 

 

	
AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Column   B
    	
 
    
	
(Signature of Column B)
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
Column B
    	
 
    
			


 













 

	
 
    	
 
    	
Column A
    	
 
    	
Column B
    	
 
    	
Column C
    	
 
    	
Column D
    
	
1
    	
 
    	
Feb 20, 2010
    	
 
    	
Zhang Bang
    	
 
    	
Room 1408,   No.29, Shui Yin Road, Yue Xiu District Guangzhou, China
    	
 
    	
Mr. Zhang
    
	
2
    	
 
    	
Sep 17, 2010
    	
 
    	
LIU GUISHENG
    	
 
    	
Room 601,   No. 6, Lane 157 Zhenhua Road Shanghai, China
    	
 
    	
Mr. Liu
    
	
3
    	
 
    	
Feb 10, 2012
    	
 
    	
SANG XIAOBING
    	
 
    	
Room 203,   Building 2, No. 11, Tongqu Lane, Wucheng Disctrict, Jinhua, Zhejiang   Province, China
    	
 
    	
Mr. Sang
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0047

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

TAMARA L CHAMBERLAIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 30, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 24 2023

07/24/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0047
EXHIBIT
      32.2









In connection with the Quarterly Report of Oasys Mobile, Inc.  (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the Quarter ended June 30, 2006, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      I, Tracy T. Jackson, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the
      Company.






Date:       August
              14,
              2006
            /s/ Tracy
              T.
              JacksonTracy T. JacksonChief Financial
              Officer
# C_2015350EN.01000201.xml

| 22.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 350/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 350/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7734 — Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Aircraft)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 350/03)

On 15 October 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7734. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7734. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
# C_2015418EN.01001301.xml

| 16.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 418/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 418/13

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

15 December 2015

(2015/C 418/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0990 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 132,97 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4614 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,72520 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2883 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0831 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4945 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,022 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 316,50 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,3537 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4960 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 3,2573 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5200 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5069 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5173 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6186 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5457 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 292,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 16,4213 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,1017 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6390 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 423,14 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7295 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,057 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 77,4920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,427 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 4,2609 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,9649 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 73,5161 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0990

JPY

Japanese yen

132,97

DKK

Danish krone

7,4614

GBP

Pound sterling

0,72520

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2883

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0831

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4945

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,022

HUF

Hungarian forint

316,50

PLN

Polish zloty

4,3537

RON

Romanian leu

4,4960

TRY

Turkish lira

3,2573

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5200

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5069

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5173

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6186

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5457

KRW

South Korean won

1 292,34

ZAR

South African rand

16,4213

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,1017

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6390

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 423,14

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7295

PHP

Philippine peso

52,057

RUB

Russian rouble

77,4920

THB

Thai baht

39,427

BRL

Brazilian real

4,2609

MXN

Mexican peso

18,9649

INR

Indian rupee

73,5161

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
**Exhibit 24.9**

 

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

 

KNOW ALL MEN BYTHESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E.Sulentic, Derek R. McClain, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and eachof them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitutionand resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on hisbehalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell CrowCompany, a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), the Corporation’s AnnualReport on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and to sign any or allamendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto,and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and ExchangeCommission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with orwithout the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and everyact and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, asfully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, herebyratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-in-fact or theirsubstitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

 

 
|   | /s/  ROWLAND T. MORIARTY |
|--------|--------------------------|
|   | Rowland  T. Moriarty     |

 

----
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 13 - 12 - 00638 - CV IN THE ESTATE OF TEROLLE K. LUTHEN, DECEASED

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No

. 1 of Cameron County , Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011 - CPC - 239 - A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having consid ered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion

. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against appell ee . We further order this decision certified below for observance. September 25, 2014.
----

----

----

| Entity Name                            | Incorporation | Shareholder/Parent Corp.               | Ownership Percentage |
|----------------------------------------|---------------|----------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                   |          |                                   |                 |
| Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.   | Delaware      |                                   |                 |
| Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc.           | Utah          | Schiff Nutrition International, Inc.   | 100%                 |
| WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | Nevada        | Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc.           | 100%                 |
| Coppal Research, Inc.                  | Utah          | WNG Holdings (International) LTD, Inc. | 100%                 |

Back to 10K

----

----
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

JOSE JESUS RAMIREZ, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 14-0753 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Coconino County

No. S0300CR201100106

The Honorable Dan R. Slayton, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Coconino County Attorney’s Office, Flagstaff

By Bryan F. Shea

Counsel for Respondent

Jose Jesus Ramirez, Phoenix

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Diane M. Johnsen, Judge Jon W. Thompson and Judge Paul 

J. McMurdie delivered the decision of the court. 
STATE v. RAMIREZ

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Jose Jesus Ramirez petitions for review of the summary 

dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We have considered the 

petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny relief.

¶2 Following a jury trial, Ramirez was convicted of three counts 

of aggravated driving under the influence and sentenced to concurrent tenyear prison terms. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences on 

appeal. State v. Ramirez, 1 CA-CR 11-0840, 2012 WL 2793111 (Ariz. App.

July 10, 2012) (mem. decision).

¶3 Ramirez commenced a timely proceeding for post-conviction 

relief. After appointed counsel filed a notice that he was unable to identify

a colorable claim, Ramirez filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief 

alleging a variety of claims. The superior court summarily dismissed the 

petition, finding a majority of the claims Ramirez raised were procedurally 

precluded and the remainder each failed to state a colorable claim for relief. 

This petition for review followed.

¶4 We review the summary dismissal of a petition for postconviction relief for abuse of discretion. State v. Bennett, 213 Ariz. 562, 566, 

¶ 17 (2006). Ramirez has failed to show in his petition for review that the 

superior court abused its discretion in finding the majority of his claims for 

relief were precluded and the remainder failed to state a colorable claim. 

Thus, the court did not err in summarily dismissing the petition. Ariz. R. 

Crim. P. 32.6(c).

¶5 Accordingly, although we grant review, we deny relief.