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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Kennedy Richardson v. Harlie Earle

Appellate case number: 01-20-00630-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-33435

Trial court: 280th District Court of Harris County

Appellee has filed a motion to supplement the reporter’s record with a transcript from an 

August 12, 2020 hearing. Appellee also requests that this Court order appellant to pay the cost of 

preparing the supplemental reporter’s record. 

“If anything relevant is omitted from the reporter’s record . . . the appellate court, or any 

party may by letter direct the official court reporter to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate 

court a supplemental reporter’s record containing the omitted items.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(d). 

After reviewing the record and appellant’s brief, we grant appellee’s motion in part. We order

the official court reporter for the 280th District Court to prepare, certify, and file a supplemental 

reporter’s record of the August 12, 2020 hearing. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(d). The supplemental 

reporter’s record is due in this Court within 15 days of the date of this order. 

Regarding appellee’s request for this Court to order appellant to pay the cost of preparing 

the supplemental reporter’s record, we note that appellant filed a statement of inability to pay costs 

in the trial court, and the record does not reflect that the trial court overruled appellant’s claim of 

indigence. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145(a), (c); TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1. Accordingly, we deny appellee’s 

request to order appellant to pay the cost of preparing the supplemental reporter’s record. See 

Abrigo v. Ginez, 580 S.W.3d 416, 419 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, no pet.) (stating 

that “statement of inability to pay that is uncontested in the trial court is conclusive as a matter of 

law” and that it is “an abuse of discretion for any judge. . . to order costs in spite of an uncontested 

[statement of inability to pay costs]”). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____/s/ Sherry Radack_____

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 2, 2021____
Solar Array – Keesler Air Force Base, MS

Solar Array – Keesler Air Force Base, MS

Solar Array – Misawa Air Base, Japan

Solar Array – Vandenberg Space Force Base, CA

CARBON FREE ENERGY

 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY ENERGY

 PROVIDING GLOBALLY RESILIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS

 CLEAN RENEWABLE REDUCED EMISSIONS

WARFIGHTER ALWAYS

Solar Array – Fort Detrick, MD
Neer eee eS

W8086B-8110-6017

L234 4] SP 6d? [20254 2) 2p 2) 2) a] ala) bals|sisispsisisists| slelefele| cf clot) otet 7171717 77071 7) 7h 71 8h 2 2
3 FAT 6] 74.8) FSH of 7] of fof ap 2p 3h 495] 6] 7] ef of ofa tata] af stop 7] af of of 192 ]3 4] 5pof 7} a) 9} of TOTAL PRICE SHIPPED FROM SHIP TO
voc} ri |TM suppLe- |S} F | ois | pro | PrRIREQO ¢|
IDENT|FROM £ ul auawrint MENTARY|/ 4 TRIBU] JECT | ORI DEL JAD RI SOLARA ETS DOLLARS as
Appressl Gl § | TION Ty |pateE| by) $ 2,106.01 $ 2,106.01 | CETSA See Block 27

IASJ EA 00001 04 NA H i at
4. MARK FOR:

124, DOCUMENT NUMBER & SUFFIX (30-44) 5.DOC DATE 6. NMFC 17. FRT RATE 18. TYPE CARGO . PS
8110

(|| lll | AIH Hil | | VOQTYRECD [11.UPK ]12. UNIT WT. 73, UNIT CU Tau isst

16, FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NOMENCLATURE
W8086B-8110-6017

25. NATIONAL STOCK NUMBER & ADD (8-22)

77. TEM NOMENCLATURE

26. IUC (4-6) Ul (23-24) QTY (25-29) COND (71) DIST (55-56) UP (74-80)

CUBICLE
| | | | il | l | | lit | | | | | | | | | | | erwconr 19,NO CONT | 20. TOTAL WEIGHT 21. TOTAL CUBE
22. "
7110-DSCUBICLE 23. DATE REC'D
AMA &

Task # 10U000 REL # Copy 1
LIN 7
EA 00001 H 0210601
27. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION tT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROPERTY LISTED HAS KAT
NO REASONABLE PROSPECT OF USE AND ITS REPAIR OR INV QTY
DRMO COLUMBUS REHABILITATION AS A UNIT IS CLEARLY IMPRACTICAL. IT HAS
NO VALUE FOR ITS BASIC CONTENT AND IT IS THEREFORE TURNED INSP BY

JAMES RD GATE BLDG 9 STATION 8
3990 E. BROAD STREET
COLUMBUS , OH 43213

IN FOR SCRAP OR SALVAGE.

PLEASE SIGN AND RETURN ONE COPY
FOR DISCREPANCY REPORTING USE SF 364

SELECTED BY

DD FORM 1348-1A

We certify and verify that the AEDA residue, Range Residue, and/or Explosive Contaminated property listed has been 100 percent properly
inspected by us and to the best of our knowledge and belief, are inert and/or free of explosives or other dangerous materials.

Certified By: Verified By: ~

Name (Signature Name (Signature xe
a IN -

Printed Name / Job Title

Printed Name / Job Title

USA CETSA

BUILDING 221, DOOR 7

BLUEGRASS STATION PO BOX 14064
Lexington, KY 40512

DSN: 745-3861

USA CETSA

BUILDING 221, DOOR 7

BLUEGRASS STATION PO BOX 14064
Lexington, KY 40512

DSN: 745-3861
No. 10-10959.

#### Steven C. Sparks, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

565 U.S. 859, 132 S. Ct. 195,

181 L. Ed. 2d 102,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6011.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
No. 10-11192.

#### Arlene Dugmore, Petitioner v. Mary Lattimore, Warden.

565 U.S. 872, 132 S. Ct. 227,

181 L. Ed. 2d 126,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6674.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 989.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                     LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


         Below is a list of the direct and indirect subsidiaries of Claire's
Stores, Inc., a Florida corporation, and the corresponding jurisdictions of
organization.

NAME OF ENTITY                                     JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATION
--------------                                     ----------------------------

Afterthoughts Merchandising Corp.                  Delaware
BMS Distributing Corp.                             Delaware
CBI Distributing Corp                              Delaware
Claire's Austria GmbH                              Austria
Claire's Boutiques, Inc.                           Delaware
Claire's Canada Corp.                              Delaware
Claire's France S.A.S.                             France
Claire's Germany GmbH                              Germany
Claire's Holding GmbH                              Switzerland
Claire's International Europe                      Switzerland
Claire's Nippon, Ltd.                              Japan
Claire's Puerto Rico Corp.                         Delaware
Claire's Stores Canada Corp.                       Canada
Claire's Switzerland GmbH                          Switzerland
Claires Accessories UK, Ltd.                       United Kingdom
Claire's Accessories UK, Ltd. French Branch        France
Claire's Accessories UK, Ltd. Irish Branch         Ireland
CSC Limited Partnership                            Alberta
CSI Luxembourg S.a.r.l.                            Luxembourg
CSI Luxumbourg S.a.r.l. Swiss Branch               Switzerland
Femina Hgmbh Co Kg                                 Austria
Femina Hgmbh                                       Austria
RSI International, Ltd.                            Hong Kong
Sassy Doo!, Inc.                                   Delaware
Sharp of Florida                                   New York
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, May 21, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, May 21, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19D0452. KING PETRO, INC. et al. v. ULTRA GROUP OF COMPANIES, INC. et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2018CV300090
No. 10-10884.

#### Kevin Johnson, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 855, 132 S. Ct. 185,

181 L. Ed. 2d 94,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6258.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 414 Fed. Appx. 176.
u***offot, RECEIVED IN CowtofCffisni Appeal} COURTOFCBMWAL/Wb^

/W»v?r7S7<(

fW-fH*-** m<*TM e^UeJ Ut*«ft\ *<^^ *+*> ^e *-Ufa*oPH& Cx^A.

W>fr F+t th* *JJ«* ^Y ^<******&"* fa^ i^**y - Y"*****
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.14-1 AP3.14

AP3.14. APPENDIX 3.14

DEMAND

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD 

POSITION ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code

1-3 Enter DIC DHA.

Routing Identifier Code 

(TO)

4-6 Enter RIC of the Inventory Control Point 

(ICP) to which this transaction is being 

forwarded.

Media and Status 7 Enter M&S code from source document.

Stock or Part Number 8-22 Enter stock or part number from source 

document.

Unit of Issue 23-24 Enter UI of item. 

Quantity 25-29 Enter quantity of the demand, preceding 

significant digits with zero.1 / 2

Document Number 30-43 Enter document number from source 

document.

Suffix 44 Enter assigned suffix code; otherwise, leave 

blank.

Supplementary 

Address

45-50 Perpetuate from source document.

Signal 51 Perpetuate from source document.

Fund 52-53 Perpetuate from source document.

Distribution 54-56 Perpetuate from source document.

Project 57-59 Perpetuate from source document.

Priority 60-61 Perpetuate from source document.

Day of Year (Delivery) 62-64 Perpetuate from source document.

Advice 65-66 Perpetuate from source document.

Routing Identifier Code 

(Storage Activity)

67-69 Enter RIC of the storage activity from which 

the item should have been shipped. (Leave 

blank on submission to ICP.)

1 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.1.

2 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.2.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.14-2 AP3.14

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD 

POSITION ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Blank 70-71 Leave blank.

Management 72 Enter management code; otherwise, leave 

blank.

Day of Year 

(Transaction)

73-75 Enter ordinal day of the calendar year on 

which the transaction is processed.

Blank 76-80 Leave blank.
No. 10-1210.

#### Makda Fessehaie Teclezghi, Petitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General.

565 U.S. 815, 132 S. Ct. 93,

181 L. Ed. 2d 23,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7006.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 615.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 063 1 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 1 42 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.12-1 APPENDIX 3.12

AP3.12. APPENDIX 3.12

DUE-IN-OTHER THAN PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT 

SOURCE

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code 

1-3 Enter appropriate DIC from the DF

series (third digit codes in this

series correspond to the third digit

codes provided in the D6 series).

Routing Identifier

Code (TO)

4-6 Enter RIC of the Inventory Control Point

(ICP) to which this transaction is being 

forwarded.

Blank 7 Leave blank.

Stock or Part Number 8-22 Enter stock or part number of item due-in.

Unit of Issue 23-24 Enter UI of item.

Quantity (Due-In) 25-29 Enter quantity due-in, preceding significant 

digits with zero.1 / 2

Document Number 30-43 Enter controlling document number.

Suffix 44 Enter controlling suffix code, otherwise leave 

blank.

Supplementary 

Address

45-50 Enter SUPADD; otherwise, leave blank.

Signal 51 Enter signal code; otherwise, leave blank.

Fund 52-53 Enter fund code; otherwise, leave blank.

Distribution 54-56 Enter distribution code; otherwise, leave 

blank.

Project 57-59 Enter project code; otherwise, leave blank.

Multiuse 60-66 For intra-Component use, enter data 

prescribed by the Component. For interComponent use, leave blank.

3, 4, 5

1 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.1.

2 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.2.

3 For intra-Army use, rp 60-61 identifies the priority designator. (See ADC 234.)

4 For intra-Army use, rp 65-66 identifies the advice code. (See ADC 234.)
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP3.12-2 APPENDIX 3.12

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Routing Identifier 

Code (Storage 

Activity)

67-69 Enter RIC of the storage activity to which the 

item is due-in.

Ownership/Purpose 70 Enter ownership/purpose code of item duein.

Supply Condition 71 Enter supply condition code of the item duein.

Management 72 Enter management code; otherwise, leave

blank.

Date Indicator 

(Estimated Delivery)

73-75 Enter last digit of calendar year and 2-digit 

month signifying estimated delivery date; 

e.g., 307 is 2003, month of July.6

Routing Identifier 

Code (FROM)

76-78 Enter RIC of the ICP transmitting this 

transaction for logistic reassignment due-in; 

otherwise, leave blank.

Blank 79-80 Leave blank.

5 Priority Designator is identified in Army Regulation (AR) for intra-Army use in rp 60-61. 6 See Appendix AP3 - Formats Introduction, Paragraph AP3.3.4.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

_______ _________________

No. 15

- 13855 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15

- cv

- 60480

- JIC

HEATHER ANDREWS MCGEE, LAKETHA D. WILSON,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

versus

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( J anuary 1 8 , 2017 )

Before MARCUS and WILLIAM PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS

, ∗ District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

∗ Honorable Brian J. Davis, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 15-13855 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 1 of 22 The issue in this appeal is whether the extended charge that Bank of

America assesses on its deposit accounts constitutes “interest” for purposes of the

National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85

– 86. The plaintiffs concede that, under our

decision in Video Trax, Inc. v. Nationsbank, N.A. , 205 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2000)

, the extended charge is not interest. The plaintiffs brought this appeal because they

want to petition the en banc Court to overrule Video Trax

, a petition they are free

to file within 21 days of our opinion, see 11th Cir. R. 35

- 2. The plaintiffs also

argue that the district court should have allowed them to proceed to discovery

before dismissing their complaint, but that argument fails because the ir complaint

fail s to state a claim as a matter of law

.

We AFFIRM the dismissal of the complaint. We DENY AS MOOT the

appellants’ motion to dismiss the appeal.

Case: 15-13855 Date Filed: 01/18/2017 Page: 2 of 2
Filed 2/5/14 P. v. Rebaldo CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

THE PEOPLE, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

JOSHUA DAVID REBALDO, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

2d Crim. No. B251058 

(Super. Ct. No. F485043 

(San Luis Obispo County) 

 Joshua David Rebaldo appeals from the judgment entered after he pled no 

contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a))1

 and admitted a prior 

prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial 

court sentenced appellant to four years state prison. Appellant was ordered to pay victim 

restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $1,200 

parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), and a $30 

conviction fee (Gov. Code § 70373). 

 Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a request for certificate of probable 

cause (§ 1237.5, subd. (a)) alleging, among other things, that he suffered from a 

psychiatric disability. 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
2

 We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. After counsel's 

examination of the record, counsel filed a brief raising no issues. On December 6, 2013, 

we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any 

contentions or issues that he wished to raise on appeal. No response has been received. 

 We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that appellant's 

attorney has fully complied with his responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 125-

126.) 

 The judgment is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 YEGAN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P.J. 

 PERREN, J. 
3

Hugh F. Mullin, Judge 

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo 

______________________________ 

 California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director and Richard B. Lennon, Staff Attorey for 

Appellant.
PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS PUBLIC MEETING FOR 

RESIDENTIAL CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONERS & HEAT PUMPS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

Room 1E- 245 

May 5, 2010 

Purpose 

The Department is holding this public meeting to discuss the energy conservation 

standard preliminary analysis. DOE will also explain its plans for the remaining analyses 

including its methodologies, assumptions, and data sources and will seek comment on the 

fore mentioned topics. 

Agenda 

9:00 – 9:05 am Welcome 

9:05 – 9:10 am Attendee Introductions and Agenda Review 

 Doug Brookman 

9:10 – 9:25 am Brief Opening Remarks 

 Wes Anderson/Doug Brookman 

Opportunity for interested parties to make brief summary 

comments. 

9:25 – 10:00 am Rulemaking Overview, Regional Standards Background, 

Consensus Agreement, and Combined Rulemaking 

 Wes Anderson/Robert Carmichael 

Overview of legislative authority for the rulemaking, regional 

standard, the details of the consensus agreement, and the option of 

a combined rulemaking with furnaces and furnace fans. 

10:00 – 10:30 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, and 

Engineering Analysis 

Matt Millard 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used 

and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, 

screening analysis, and engineering analysis. 

10:30 – 10:45 am Break 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0006 COMMENT 58
10:45 – 11:45 am Markups for Equipment Price Determination, Energy Use 

Characterization, Life-Cycle Cost, and Payback Period 

Analysis 

Mike Scott and Dave Winiarski 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used 

and factors considered for the markups to determine equipment 

price analysis, energy use analysis, life-cycle cost and payback 

period analyses. 

11:45 – 12:15 am Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis 

 Greg Rosenquist 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach used 

and factors considered for the shipments analysis, national energy 

savings, net present value, and a characterization of the results. 

12:15 – 12:25 am Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

 Matt Millard 

Summary presentation and discussion regarding the approach to be 

used and factors to be considered for the manufacturer impact 

analysis. 

12:25 – 12:30 pm Next Steps and Closing 

 Wes Anderson 

Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding 

remarks. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0006 COMMENT 58
#### *Montgomery et al., Petitioners, v. Engelhard et al., Respondents,*

No. 91927-5.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 31888-5-III, June 2, 2015, 2,2015,188 188 Wn. App. 66. *Denied*December 4, 2015.