alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00290-CR

No. 02-19-00291-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 3

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 1454393D, 1474527D

Before Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

RAFAEL VILLARD, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Rafael Villard attempts to appeal from (1) the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating him guilty of assault of a family member by impeding the breathing or 

circulation of the victim, with a previous family-violence conviction, and (2) the trial 

court’s judgment convicting him of assault of a family or household member, with a 

previous family-violence conviction. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(b)(2)(A), (b-3).

On February 10, 2017, the trial court sentenced Villard to three years’ confinement in 

each case with the sentences to run concurrently. Because Villard did not move for a 

new trial in either case, his notice of appeal in each case was due no later than March 

13, 2017. See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 26.2(a)(1). Over two years later, on July 25, 2019, 

Villard filed a notice of appeal attempting to appeal from both judgments.

On August 1, 2019, we notified Villard by letter of our concern that we lacked 

jurisdiction over these appeals because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). We advised him that unless we received a response by 

August 12, 2019, showing grounds for continuing the appeals, the appeals could be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. We have received no 

response.

Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely filed notice of appeal.

See Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). If a notice of appeal is

not timely filed under rule 26.2, we do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of 

the appeal and may take no action other than to dismiss it. See Slaton v. State,
3

981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). Because Villard’s notice of appeal was 

untimely filed, we dismiss these appeals for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 

26.2(a)(1), 43.2(f).

/s/ Elizabeth Kerr

Elizabeth Kerr

Justice

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: September 26, 2019
No. 11-7548.

#### Hung Nam Tran, Petitioner v. Wisconsin.

565 U.S. 1134, 132 S. Ct. 1059,

181 L. Ed. 2d 777,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 335.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District II, denied.

Same case below, 332 Wis. 2d 803, 798 N.W.2d 319.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 18 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 4345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1977]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Application and Renewal Fees Imposed on Surety Companies and 
Reinsuring Companies; Increase in Fees Imposed

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the 
Treasury.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Effective December 31, 1997, The Department of the Treasury, 
Financial Management Service, is increasing the fees it imposes on and 
collects from surety companies and reinsuring companies.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Surety Bond Branch, (202) 874-6765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fees imposed and collected, as referred 
to in 31 CFR 223.22, cover the costs incurred by the Government for 
services performed relative to qualifying corporate sureties to write 
Federal business. These fees are determined in accordance with the 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, as amended. The increase 
in fees is the result of a thorough analysis of costs associated with 
the Surety Bond Branch.
    The new fee rate schedule is as follows:
    (1) Examination of a company's application for a Certificate of 
Authority as an acceptable surety or as an acceptable reinsuring 
company on Federal bonds--$3,900.
    (2) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its Certificate of Authority--$2,300.
    (3) Examination of a company's application for recognition as an 
Admitted Reinsurer (except on excess risks running to the United 
States)--$1,385.
    (4) Determination of a company's continued qualification for annual 
renewal of its authority as an Admitted Reinsurer--$975.
    Questions concerning this notice should be directed to the Surety 
Bond Branch, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service, 
Department of the Treasury, Hyattsville, MD 20782, Telephone (202) 874-
6850.

    Dated: January 16, 1998.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Acting, Assistant Commissioner, Financial Information, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 98-1977 Filed 1-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
No. 10-7132.

#### Manolo Alegria Sanchez, Petitioner v. J. Haynes, Superintendent, Warren Correctional Institution.

562 U.S. 1146, 131 S. Ct. 919,

178 L. Ed. 2d 767,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 556.

January 10, 2011.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 289.
No. 11-7266.

#### Robert Christopher Parks, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1099, 132 S. Ct. 860,

181 L. Ed. 2d 560,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8887.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 442 Fed. Appx. 23.
zentric_ex10.htm


EXHIBIT 10.1


 



	
 


 

	ZENTRIC (HK) LIMITED.
	Suite 17, B1.1, 63-85 Turner Street
	Port Melbourne, Victoria 3207
	Voice: +613 9646 6641
	Facsimile: +613 9012 4404
	Email: belloc@zbatt.com





 



	REF:           ZNTR-MEI-120404-01	Date: April 4 2012





 


Matinee Energy, Inc.


335 Wilmot Drive, Ste 200, 


Tucson, Arizona


85711


 


Attention: Mr. S. Chin Kim, CEO 


 


Dear Mr. Kim,


 


We wish to inform you that we feel it is advisable that Zentric (HK) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Zentric, Inc. withdraw from the EPC Agreement dated January 7, 2012 with respect to the Solar Power Plant project to be built in Benson Arizona.


 


We sincerely regret this action but since we have been unable to arrange for sufficient financing in a timely manner to meet your deadline we do not wish to create any further delays for Matinee Energy as you try to begin construction of this 20MW phase of the development.


 


What is most regrettable is that we have completed certain aspects of our role in the construction of this project by entering into agreements to secure as much as 40MW solar panel inventory ready to ship as well as securing a sub-contractors agreement with Gehrlicher Solar America Corp. to handle the construction.


 


We feel that we have been building a “best in class” team ready to move forward with this project however beyond the $100,000 we have already paid to organize ZenPower we are unfortunately unable to meet your deadline and fulfill the funding requirements that comes due today.


 


We are working closely with well-respected private equity interests that have expressed a strong desire to participate in solar energy projects with us but as in any discussion of this nature negotiations remain ongoing. We do believe our efforts will result in adding a strong strategic investor to Zentric, Inc. that is capable of funding any size project that may become available and that seeks ownership in solar energy and other renewable energy projects.


 


Consequently, even as we enter the final stages of discussion with these prospective investors we are not able at this time to meet the immediate obligations that we had in good faith agreed to and since it would be unfair for us to request from you additional time to meet these obligations while we finalize our investor negotiations we are left with no alternative other than respectfully withdrawing from the EPC Agreement effective immediately.


 


We hope that over the next few weeks, once we have our company on stronger financial footing we will have the opportunity to meet and discuss with you the possibility of future participation in your exciting solar power project.


 


We appreciate the opportunity you have provided to us and will watch the development of your project with great interest and wish you much success.


 



	Yours truly,	 
	
 


 

	 
	William Tien, President	 
	Zentric Inc.	 





 


ZENTRIC (HK) LIMITED | ZNTR- MEI-120404-01
No. 10-11212.

#### Sean Masciandaro, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1058, 132 S. Ct. 756,

181 L. Ed. 2d 482,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8647.

November 28, 2011.

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

Same case below, 638 F.3d 458.
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: ___________________________ 

Project No.: 0172.07.005.507 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: 304(m) Annual Review 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call 

Date: 6/29/2010 Time: 10:40 am EST 

Company Name: UOP LLC (AL0002666) 

Contact Name: Rick Frain 

Phone No.: (251) 330-7246 

Name: Elizabeth Sabol Eastern Research Group 

GENERAL SUBJECT : Aluminum Discharges Reported to DMR in 2008 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

I called UOP LLC on June 29, 2010, to speak with Jere Trigg regarding aluminum discharges from Outfalls 003 

and 004, reported to DMR in 2008. I left him a message identifying myself and the reason I was calling. I asked 

him to return my call or forward my information to the correct contact. On Tuesday, June 29, Rick Frain 

returned my call. Mr. Frain and I briefly discussed the aluminum discharges that I needed to confirm. I provided 

the reported concentrations in the DMR database to him and also the average flow in MGD. Mr. Frain said that 

he would check the DMR reports and call me back with the correct information. 

Mr. Frain returned my call and confirmed the aluminum discharges for Outfalls 003 and 004 (storm water 

runoff). He stated that the flow reported to DMR in 2008 had the incorrect units. He provided the correct flows 

for the reporting periods June and December 2008. The following table shows the original flow rates from 

DMR and the corrected flow rates. I told Mr. Frain that we would use this data to correct the database. 

Flow Data for UOP LLC for 2008

Outfall 

Monitoring Period 

Date 

Original 

Flow Rate 

(MGD) 

Corrected Flow 

Rate (MGD) 

003 30-Jun-08 31.86 3.186 

003 31-Dec-08 20.33 2.033 

004 30-Jun-08 25.52 2.552 

004 31-Dec-08 16.29 1.629
Exhibit 32.2

Sigmarenopro, Inc.

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350

Section 906 Certifications



In connection with the Annual Report of Sigmarenopro,Inc.,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2021 (the “Report”) I, the Chief Financial Officer of
the Company certify, pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:



(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.



This Certification is signed on November 30,
2023.



|Sigmarenopro, Inc.                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                    
|By: /s/ Ronald Jones                                                                                                
|Ronald Jones,                                                                                                       
|Chief Financial Officer, (principal executive officer, principal accounting officer and principal financial officer)





A signed original of this written statement required
by Section 906 has been provided to SIGMARENOPRO, INC. and will be retained by SIGMARENOPRO, INC. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The forgoing certification is being furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to § 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether
made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
No. 10-10768.

#### James B. Stegeman, Petitioner v. Superior Court of Georgia, Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit, et al.

565 U.S. 848, 132 S. Ct. 170,

181 L. Ed. 2d 82,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6431.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# Box4_Table 5_Herpes
No. 11-7125.

#### Eddie David Zamarripa, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1085, 132 S. Ct. 828,

181 L. Ed. 2d 537,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8717.

December 5, 2011.

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

Same case below, 446 Fed. Appx. 848.
No. 11-7296.

#### Tyrone Sturdivant, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 1100, 132 S. Ct. 862,

181 L. Ed. 2d 562,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8854.

December 12, 2011.

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

Same case below, 420 Fed. Appx. 651.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Corey
Henry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this 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 Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2017-3
(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. Based
on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the 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: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association.



By:

/s/ Corey HenryName:

Corey HenryTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerSantander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)Date:

March 29, 2019
No. 10-10501.

#### Eve Jolicoeur-Vasseur, Petitioner v. Association of Professional Flight Attendants, et al.

565 U.S. 1074, 132 S. Ct. 802,

181 L. Ed. 2d 513,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8354.

November 28, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 565 U.S. 839, 132 S. Ct. 147, 181 L. Ed. 2d 64, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 6066.
No. 11-5103.

#### Troy Manning, Petitioner v. New York.

565 U.S. 889, 132 S. Ct. 268,

181 L. Ed. 2d 158,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5278.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of New York, First Judicial Department, denied.

Same case below, 78 App. Div. 3d 585, 912 N.Y.S.2d 183.
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Mack-Cali Realty, L.P. (the "Operating Partnership") for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Mitchell E. Hersh, as Chief Executive Officer of Mack-Cali Realty
Corporation, its general partner, and Barry Lefkowitz, as Chief Financial Officer of Mack-Cali Realty Corporation, its general partner, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350,
as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: August 13, 2003 |  | By: | /s/MITCHELL E. HERSHMitchell E. Hersh
Chief Executive Officer of Mack-Cali Realty
    Corporation, the general partner of Mack-Cali
    Realty, L.P.
|--------------------- |  | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: August 13, 2003 |  | By: | /s/BARRY LEFKOWITZBarry Lefkowitz
Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer of Mack-Cali Realty
    Corporation, the general partner of Mack-Cali
    Realty, L.P.
|--------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
be deemed filed by the Operating Partnership for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Operating Partnership and will be retained by the Operating Partnership and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
16 July 2014 ***********************

NSN: 8940-01-620-9458 (VCPT) * MONOGRAPH M2B29

 *********************** 

Item: Vegetable crumbles with pasta in taco style sauce

Document: PCR-V-010, Vegetable Crumbles with Pasta in Taco Style Sauce, Packaged in a 

Flexible Pouch, Shelf Stable

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 255 Component Classification: Primary

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Uniform mixture of vegetable sauce crumbles, mafalda noodles, black beans, and 

vegetables in a taco style sauce.

Pasta: Broad, flat noodles with ruffled edges; cooked pasta color.

Crumble: Cooked ground meat appearance in random size pieces with largest crumble 

not exceeding 1/2 inch.

Sauce: Glossy, opaque and orange-brown color; Contains whole black beans, with 

discernible pieces of tomato, diced green and red bell peppers, and onions.

Odor:

Pasta: Cooked pasta.

Crumble: Typical of cooked ground meat.

Sauce: Intense taco seasoning and elicit a sensation of mild heat.

Flavor:

Pasta: Cooked pasta.

Crumble: Typical of cooked ground meat.

Sauce: Intense taco seasoning and elicit a sensation of mild heat; tomatoes, green and 

red bell peppers, onions, and black beans.

Texture:

Pasta: Slightly soft to slightly firm; not pasty.

Crumble: Similar to cooked ground meat.

Sauce: Smooth and moderately thick with tender tomatoes, green and red bell peppers, 

and slightly firm black beans.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Pasta: Excessively broken or mushy.

Sauce: Darkened sauce; excessively thick or thin. 

Odor: Scorched, bitter, sour, metallic. Loss of spice.

Flavor: Scorched, bitter, sour, metallic. Loss of spice.

Texture:

Pasta: Excessively soft, mushy, or broken up. 

Crumble: Tough or dry. 

Sauce: Excessively thick or thin.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

N/A

Special Notes

The sausage style crumbles are a vegetarian meat analogue and therefore should not be evaluated as a 
16 July 201

4 ***********************

NSN: 8940-01-620-9458 (VCPT) * MONOGRAPH M2B29

 *********************** 

meat product.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00183-CR

Luis DeLeon Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

454th Judicial District Court of Medina County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21-09-14171-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 15, 2024
Chromium Metal Offering

Item # Location Drums Origin

Unit of Measure................... Pounds Cutoff Time for Receipt.........

March 20, 2023

March 21, 2023

12:00pm

FISCAL YEAR 2023

Basic Ordering Agreement... Chromium Metal Date of Posting...................

Commodity.................................Chromium Metal Date for Receipt of Quotes....

Type Lot #

Totals

Net Weight ST

NOTE: Minimum bid is one entire line item.

*

All quotes must be submitted through the DLA-Strategic Materials Sales Portal

and quoters must be pre-approved in the site to participate

DLA - Strategic Materials Sales Portal

131.94 ST 263,886 Lbs

Quantity Offered/Minimum Bid

0274d Aluminothermic HAMMOND, IN 018 20 UNITED KINGDOM 6.75 ST 13496 Lbs

0274e Aluminothermic HAMMOND, IN 018 20 UNITED KINGDOM 6.73 ST 13469 Lbs

0275a Aluminothermic HAMMOND, IN 021 28 UNITED KINGDOM 9.45 ST 18899 Lbs

0275b Aluminothermic HAMMOND, IN 021 28 UNITED KINGDOM 9.46 ST 18913 Lbs

0275c Aluminothermic HAMMOND, IN 021 28 UNITED KINGDOM 9.46 ST 18929 Lbs

0334a Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 6 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0334b Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 6 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0334c Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 6 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0334d Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 6 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0335a Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 7 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0335b Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 7 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0335c Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 7 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0335d Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 7 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs

0353a Electrolytic HAMMOND, IN 17 28 DOMESTIC 10.01 ST 20020 Lbs
No. 11-6011.

#### Cynthia Clanton, Petitioner v. Schlegel Systems, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 1151, 132 S. Ct. 1083,

181 L. Ed. 2d 801,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 554.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*802Former decision, 565 U.S. 982, 132 S. Ct. 505, 181 L. Ed. 2d 356, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 7784.