alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-29-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-20-1998
<CASH>                                           9,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,913
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    149,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               202,944
<PP&E>                                         640,405
<DEPRECIATION>                                 352,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 649,857
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          197,176
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           66,924
<PREFERRED>                                      9,487
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                   (203,533)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   649,857
<SALES>                                        484,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               484,383
<CGS>                                          358,242
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  492,786
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,842
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,403)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,488)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,915)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,915)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (19.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (19.06)
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ex parte Matthew Leachman

Appellate case number: 01-22-00232-CR, 01-22-00233-CR, 01-22-00234-CR

Trial court case number: 1756174, 1756176, 1756173

Trial court: 248th District Court of Harris County

On March 25, 2022, Appellant Matthew Leachman filed notices of appeal of the trial 

court’s denial of his applications for writ of habeas corpus in the above-referenced cause

numbers. On May 19, 2022, this Court abated the appeals and remanded them to the trial court 

to allow the trial court to supplement the appellate record with (1) a certification of Appellant’s

right to appeal the denial of his writs of habeas corpus, (2) briefs Appellant filed in support of 

his habeas applications, and (3) the transcript from a September 3, 2021 hearing referenced in 

Appellant’s habeas applications. The trial court clerk has since supplemented the appellate 

record to include the requested materials. We thus lift the abatement and order that the

appeals be reinstated and returned to this Court’s active docket. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1, applicable to appeals from a judgment or order 

in a habeas corpus proceeding, provides that when an appellate court receives the record, it may 

set the time for filing briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 31.1. Pursuant to Rule 31.1, we order

Appellant to file a brief within 30 days of the date of this order. The State’s brief will be due 30 

days from the date Appellant files his brief.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Veronica Rivas-Molloy

Acting individually 

Date: July 7, 2022
#### DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, trustee of Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2007-NC2 Mortgage-Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC2, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth MCLEOD; Carol McLeod, Husband and Wife; Circle G at Rigg’s Homestead Ranch Homeowners Association; Unknown Parties, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-17527

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submission Deferred November 15, 2016

Resubmitted June 28, 2017 * San Francisco, California

Filed June 28, 2017

*854Robert W. Norman, Jr., Attorney, Houser & Allison, APC, Irvine, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Beth Findsen, Esquire, Johnson, Find-sen *&*Kinney, PLLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees-

Before: LUCERO,** GRABER, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation,

MEMORANDUM ***

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. initiated judicial foreclosure proceedings against Kenneth and Carol McLeod after they defaulted on a $771,000 home loan. Because the McLeods had obtained a default judgment against Deutsche Bank in separate state court proceedings, the district court dismissed Deutsche Bank’s complaint as barred by res judicata and the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine “without prejudice to seeking relief from the Default Judgment from the state court.”

The Arizona Court of Appeals has now concluded that the default judgment was void *ab initio. McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co.,*No. 1 CA-CV 15-0504, 2017 WL 2189498, at *4-5 ¶¶ 20-21, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 18, 2017) (unpublished). We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings in light of the decision of the state court.

Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Armando RODRIGUEZ, also known as Mando, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-20240 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

*370Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Armando Rodriguez, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Armando Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rodriguez has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
SERVED FEBRUARY 25, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOM-pj OF [^ ;SPOHWION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS ' i'^ 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

REDOX TECH, LLC, 

Respondent. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP09AL0013 

(Civil Penalty Proceeding) 

DMS NO. FAA-2009-0978 

NOTICE OF HEARING 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the hearing in this case will be held on 

March 25, 2010, beginning at 10:00 a.m., local time at the following location: 

Office of Administrative Hearings 

1711 New Hope Church Road 

Courtroom C 

Raleigh, NC 27609 

Allow time to pass through security and note that cameras, including cellular 

telephones incorporating cameras, are not allowed in federal courthouses. 

lenkin 

Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment-Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09AL0013 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Dr. John Haselow 

Redox Tech, LLC Respondent 

200 Quade Drive 

Gary, NC 27513 

TEL: 919-678-0140 

FAX: 911-678-0150 

Howard L. Martin, Jr., Complainant's Counsel 

Regional Counsel, Alaskan Region 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AAL-7 

Federal Aviation Administration 

222 West 7* Avenue, Box 14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

TEL: 907-271-5271 

FAX: 907-271-2800 

The Honorable Isaac D. Benkin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room El2-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-2132 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use tiie following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00663-CV

John R. Guerra, Appellant

v.

Tammy Miller Guerra, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-FM-09-005775, HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant John R. Guerra has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. He certifies that

he has conferred with opposing counsel and there is no opposition to the motion. Accordingly, we

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1).

Appellee Tammy Miller Guerra also filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. She seeks

dismissal for failure to prosecute and to recover her costs and all other relief to which she shows

herself entitled. We grant her motion to the extent she seeks appellate costs under Rule 43.4 of the

Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4. To the extent that she seeks to recover

other relief, we deny her motion. In all other respects, we dismiss her motion as moot.
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 3, 2015

2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

RONALD ALEX STEVENSON, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CARSON CITY; AND THE 

HONORABLE JAMES E. WILSON, 

DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents. 

No. 69294 

FILE 

JAN 1 4 2016 

TRACE K. UNDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus 

challenging a district court order denying petitioner's motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we 

are not persuaded that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously 

exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's motion for leave to proceed 

in forma pauperis so as to warrant writ relief. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game 

Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 

558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 

840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioner bears the burden to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 147- 0 1 2 SI 
demonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.' 

fret Atlen , J. 

Hardesty 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge 

Ronald Alex Stevenson 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Carson City Clerk 

'Petitioner's December 3, 2015, motion for leave to file pro se 

documents is denied as moot. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A atep
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350        (ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

In connection with the report of Dynegy Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended
December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert C. Flexon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certify as of the date hereof, solely for the purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



Date: December 10, 2012

By:

/s/ ROBERT C. FLEXON Robert C. Flexon President and Chief Executive Officer


---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 880 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 880

   To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the 
                             United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 1995

Mrs. Hutchison introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To enhance fairness in compensating owners of patents used by the 
                             United States.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. JUST COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 1498(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end of the first paragraph the following: 
``Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner's 
reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and 
attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent 
inventor, a nonprofit organization, or an entity that had no more than 
500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or 
manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to actions under section 1498(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
that are pending on, or brought on or after, January 1, 1995.
                                 <all>
```
**CERTIFICATION**




**Ownit
      Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-7**







I,
      Elizabeth Folk, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Litton
      Loan
      Servicing LP, certify that:





1.  I
      have
      reviewed the report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be
      filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ownit
      Mortgage Loan Trust, Series 2006-7 (the “Exchange Act Periodic
      Reports”);





2.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do not
      contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
      fact
      necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under
      which
      such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered
      by
      this report;





3.  Based
      on
      my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required
      to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included
      in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;





4.  I
      am
      responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicers and based
      on
      my knowledge and the compliance reviews conducted in preparing the servicer
      compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation
      AB,
      and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers
      have
      fulfilled their obligations under the pooling and servicing agreement in all
      material respects; and





5.  All
      of
      the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed
      securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
      with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included
      in
      this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
      Rules
      13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as
      otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance
      described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form
      10-K.





In
      giving
      the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided
      to me
      by the following unaffiliated parties: LaSalle Bank National Association
      (custodian) and LaSalle Bank National Association (trustee).








Date:  March 29,
      2007







/s/
        Elizabeth Folk


Elizabeth
      Folk


Senior
      Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer


Litton
      Loan Servicing LP


(Senior
      Officer in charge of the servicing function
      of the servicer)
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Euro Group of Companies, Inc. (formerly ICT Technologies, Inc.), a Delaware corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:




(1) The Report of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.






Date:   May 31, 2011
By:
/s/    Vasilios KoutsobinasVasilios KoutsobinasChief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 8**

----

**List of subsidiaries**

| **Name**                              |   | **Jurisdiction**                |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|                                       |   |                                 |   |
| Wavecom          Asia Pacific Limited |   | Hong Kong SAR PRC               |   |
| Wavecom          Inc                  |   | Delaware, U.S.A.                |   |
| Arguin          Communications Inc    |   | California, U.S.A.              |   |
| Wavecom          Korea Co. Ltd        |   | Republic of Korea (South Korea) |   |
| Wavecom          Deutschland GMBH     |   | Federal Republic of Germany     |   |
| Wavecom          Northern Europe Ltd  |   | United Kingdom                  |   |

----
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Van Santvoord CAMP, Defendant-Appellant.

No, 16-7735

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 25, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

*731Roger Van Santvoord Camp, Appellant Pro Se. G. Norman Acker, III, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Banumathi Rangarajan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before KING, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger .Van Santvoord Camp seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012); *Buck v. Davis,*— U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 759, 773, 197 L.Ed.2d 1 (2017). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Camp has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

                    CASE CREDIT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

               COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Six Months
                                                                      Ended
                                                                    June 30,
                                                                  -------------
                                                                   1999   1998
                                                                  ------ ------
<S>                                                               <C>    <C>
Net income....................................................... $   41 $   37
Add:
  Interest expense...............................................     92     60
  Amortization of capitalized debt expense.......................      1    --
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income...................     24     20
                                                                  ------ ------
    Earnings as defined.......................................... $  158 $  117
                                                                  ====== ======
Interest expense................................................. $   92 $   60
Amortization of capitalized debt expense.........................      1    --
                                                                  ------ ------
    Fixed charges as defined..................................... $   93 $   60
                                                                  ====== ======
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges...............................  1.70x  1.95x
                                                                  ====== ======
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
	SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
CALCULATION OF WEIGHTED AVERAGE UNITS OUTSTANDING


	EXHIBIT 99.1

The weighted average number of partnership units used in the 
computation of earnings per unit is as follows:

                                     Six Months
                                   Ended June 30     
                                  1997         1998 
<S>                             <C>           <C>
Actual number of units
 outstanding at the beginning
 of the period                  4,426,568     4,515,818

Weighted average number of
 units issued during the period         0             0

Weighted average number of
 units outstanding during the
 period                         4,426,568     4,515,818

</TABLE>