alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered May 11, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 20
- 01118
- CV
BRIGETTA D’ OLIVIO , Appellant

V.
HILARY THOMPSON HUTSON , Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 002
- 02704
- 2020

O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s April 28, 2021 letter regarding the clerk’s
record. We construe the letter as a motion to correct the clerk’s record. Appellant
states i n her motion that she has performed a “cursory review” of the clerk’s record and is still in the process of reviewing it. As best we can discern, appellant complains that the clerk’s record is missing the following three documents: (1) order signed on De cember 21, 2020; (2) amended judgment signed on December31, 202 0 1 ; and (2) order signed on January 1, 202 0

. 2 We GRANT the motion to

the extent that we ORDER Collin County Clerk Stacey Kemp to file, by May 21,
2021 , a supplement al clerk’s record containin g the three requested documents. If any of the documents do not exist or cannot be located, Ms. Kemp shall provide
written verification of such fact. Should appellant have a further complaint about the clerk’s record, she shall file a motion specifically identifying any omission or inaccuracy.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Kemp and all parties.
/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE

1 The clerk’s record contains the trial court’s Final Judgment and Order on Forcible En try and Detainer signed on December 31, 2020. It also contains appellee’s Corrected Proposed Final Judgment and Order filed on December 18, 2020 with the corrected proposed order attached. The signed judgment in the clerk’s record includes the correction s requested in the corrected proposed final judgment.
2 We note the Case Summary in the clerk’s record includes a “Judge’s Docket Entry” for this date stating: “Defendant’s Motion to Clarify Oral Ruling, Reduce Amount of Supersedeas Bond and Reduce Oral Ru ling to Written Order and Motion to Stay Enforcement of Oral Ruling Pending Consideration of Emergency Motio n is hereby DENIED IN ALL PARTS.”
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 29, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00256

- CR

Jeffrey LEE

,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bex ar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CR6806 Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On September 26, 2014, appellant’s appointed attorney, Mr. Karl Basile, filed a motion to withdraw as appellate counsel. Mr. Basile states appellant filed a gr ievance against him, which was dismissed on September 8, 2014, but appellant has decided to appeal the dismissal. We

GRANT the motion to withdraw.

Appellant, whose brief is currently due on October 9, 2014, is now without representation. We therefore ORD ER that this appeal is ABATED to the trial court. See Duncan

v. State , 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that appellate courts may abate appeals so that trial court can assure appellant has effective assistance of counsel). We remand

the c ause to the trial court for it to make appropriate findings and rule on these issues:

(1) Does appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Is appellant indigent? If appellant is indigent and desires to prosecute his appeal, the trial court should take steps necessary to ensure effective assistance of counsel, including the appointment of new counsel, if necessary. If appellant desires to proceed pro se, the trial court is directed to determine appellant’s ability and capacity to knowingly and intellig ently waive his right to counsel. See Ex parte Davis , 818 S.W.2d
64, 66

- 68 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Hubbard v. State , 739 S.W.2d 341, 345 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). The trial should consider whether allowing appellant to proceed pro se on appeal is in the be st interests of the appellant and the government. Martinez v. California , 528 U.S. 152, 120 S. Ct. 684, 691

- 92 145 L. Ed.2d 597 (2000).We further ORDER he trial court to file in this court, no later than October 29, 2014 , (1) a reporter’s record of the hearing, and (2) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s written findings of fact and conclusions of law on the above issues.

All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further notice from this court.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of September, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Antonia SANGSTER, Individually, Erika Sangster, a Minor, by Her Next Friend Antonia Sangster, and Amanda Sangster, a Minor by Her Next Friend Antonia Sangster, Appellants, v. SHOP 'N SAVE WAREHOUSE FOODS, INC., Koman Properties, Inc., and Mayfair Acquisitions, LLC, Respondents.

No. ED 105473

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION THREE.

Filed: April 24, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Kim C. Freter, 225 S. Meramec, Suite 1100, Clayton, MO 63105, Amanda Murphy, Nolan D. Drafahl, 8182 Maryland Ave., Suite 801, St. Louis, MO 63105.

FOR RESPONDENT: David P. Bub, Tyler J. Finnegan, 800 market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

Before Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., Robert M. Clayton III, J., Angela T. Quigless, J.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Antonia Sangster, Erika Sangster, and Amanda Sangster (collectively "Plaintiffs") appeal the judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Shop 'N Save Warehouse Foods, Inc., Koman Properties, Inc., and Mayfair Acquisitions, LLC (collectively "Defendants") on Plaintiffs' claims for wrongful death and negligence arising out of a fall that occurred on Defendants' property. We find no error has occurred.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 18, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11535-11536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5773]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR09-16-000]


Enogex, LLC; Notice of Filing

March 11, 2009.
    Take notice that on February 27, 2009, Enogex, LLC (Enogex) filed 
pursuant to section 284.123(e) of the Commission's regulations, a 
revised Statement of Operating Conditions (SOC) proposing to implement 
a new firm transportation service on its East Zone effective April 1, 
2009. Enogex states that it is making the revisions to its SOC in 
advance of a rate petition which will seek to establish new firm 
section 311 transportation rates on its East Zone and to revise its 
existing interruptible rates on its East and West Zones.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must 
file a motion to intervene or to protest this filing must file in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in

[[Page 11536]]

determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to 
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be 
filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an 
intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the 
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the 
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or 
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8fc9caddccc0e1e3e6e1eadcfaffffe0fdfbcfe9eafdeca1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b7f1f2e5f4f8d9dbded9d2e4c2c7c7d8c5c3f7d1d2c5d499d0d8c1">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday, March 24, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-5773 Filed 3-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  TEXAS **AUSTIN**

Iionor~blc

J. T. :JcZllin Deputy Canking Cozx;Lssioner DopxtLsent of Dankin~ Austin, Tcsns Dam Xr. :iciii.llin:

this applic2tion on was ra30 by ma ter nnking tkts report to the Dankrtor a.5 oppU.02 for. Uoothe charter 03s Over dollvrink or its incor>orntors a-xl no P Authotitywas ever issuecl or delivered. I m arklscd that tho bzuR!Z never opomd for business end iucurrodno liabili-. tics cscopt those list& in the attachM afffi- &wit, which liabilitieshave boon relcsscd as &om by the ottaohod letter siznklby the crctitorsnhmo(l. "The stoc:&olr?crs

of tlio ban!: h7.v~ ur,ani- ~ouely ogro,ti

not to accept tPs clxmtaras

### . .-. AL; Kanorable J. T. AicXillin - Page 2

@%ntcil mcl hnvc roqxstcd that the resolution of the B&n; Board bo rcscindocl. *It is the p~~rposo of tho incorporators to apply for a batii chartorunder the National Id&in:: Act and it is their dccirc,if possibl0, to avoid liquidatingprococdings 3s provlcloci

for umler Articlw 638, mil 540.

*In view of the abovo facts, pleaseUlpig3 ac chcthcr or not it ‘is wXt!;in the legal authorityof the 3kan:ini; Coard to r=scinCIts rmolution ,granting SUCh cixxter,imcl

thereby rovoko such chartw and enable the incor;;oratore to recover the caI&tal paid in by the= unclcr tho applicationfor charter.a It is our opinion that the Banizin~ Boarrl Coos hnva the authority to rosoiti its action in authorizing the chzrtor for the Croa&my Wnk, Alaz~o iIci@~ts, Texas, un4er ths facts statadby you.

Ordinarily,the officialaction of cn cxcutivo
or a&dni.stratlvo officer or board of the Strte c:zy be Eo&fied or men rescinda&by such funotionary,in the absence of som vcstd right having attachedby ro;Lson of ouch act. It is oitiy vhcre rifits of @vat3 pnrtiee have bccoue vested t&t such agenciesor successorsin office are forbiddon to revoke such action. L3iCIlWnros. v. mrr'6, 273 Se V. 7SO. The executedinstrments rofcrpea to by you ss being attachedm-e not attzdzcd;honever, we are assuming the **Pacts** to be as statedby you.
A~FROVED JAN 22, 1941 Vary trulyyaws JWL'ORNEX

GF;NZ,RAL

OF TX."" &&i-&k/ (, ,ATTORIiEY

GEXZRAL BY && Ocic L) or Bssistant OS-LiR
MCCOY v. NC DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

226P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2019

Mr. Timothy Morris McCoy, For McCoy, Timothy Morris

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 12th of June 2019 by Petitioner for Appeal Against Final Decision:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2019."
#### BW Lease Corp., Formerly Known as CLI Lease Corp., as Assignee of ML Investors Services, Inc., Respondent, v *283I.S.I. Chemical Supply Inc., et al., Appellants.

[718 NYS2d 827]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered on or about October 26, 1999, which amended the order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 20, 1999, granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of awarding partial summary judgment on liability due to 1.5.1. ’s nonpayment of rental fees, directing a hearing on the issue of damages, denying plaintiffs motion in all other respects, and denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment in its entirety, to clarify that summary judgment was granted only against defendant I.S.I. Chemical Supply Inc. for the rental payments set forth in “Equipment Schedule No. 1,” unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and summary judgment denied to all parties. Appeal from order entered May 20, 1999, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superceded by the appeal from the order of October 26, 1999. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1999, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

The complaint in this matter, which alleges causes of action sounding in breach of contract, account stated, conversion and fraudulent inducement, arises from a purported agreement between plaintiffs assignor and defendants/lessees to lease vodka packaging equipment.

Both the pre-discovery motion and cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied in their entirety, since it appears that the true nature of the transaction between the parties to the lease, as well as material terms of their agreement, is not reflected in the record before us, which clearly requires further development. The competing factual allegations of the parties are particularly incongruous. Granting plaintiff partial summary judgment for rentals allegedly owed by defendants/lessees was error since triable issues of material fact were raised by defendant with regard to the exact nature of plaintiffs assignor’s obligations under “Equipment Schedule No. 1” and whether it satisfied them. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.
Jeremy GRANT, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 105811

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION ONE.

Filed: June 12, 2018

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Kevin B. Gau, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100, St. Louis, MO 63101.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Joshua D. Hawley, Attorney General, Daniel N. McPherson, Asst. Attorney General, P. O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0899.

Before Robert G. Dowd, Jr., P.J. and Sherri B. Sullivan and Kurt S. Odenwald, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy Grant appeals the judgment of the motion court denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing. We find the motion court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not clearly erroneous and affirm.

An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, *926setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,348]

      ( print page 10621)    
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on February 23, 2009 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers of Small Parts Manufacturing, Portland, Oregon.

The Department has determined that the petition is invalid. The petitioner is a worker and not a state agency representative as indicated on the petition. A petition filed by workers must be completed by three workers.

Accordingly, this petition investigation is terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 26th day of February 2009.

Linda G. Poole,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-5190 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davi s, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

____________________ _____________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

d0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145252

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145252

COA: 308314

Marquette CC: 06

- 044129

- FH

REID JOSEPH COWAN,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Co urt, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2012 order

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 21


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

                                December 31, 2002


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                          REDWOOD EMPIRE BANCORP (REB)
                             Santa Rosa, California
                            a California corporation
<S>   <C>         <C>                   <C>                <C>            <C>            <C>
                                        |
                                        |
                                        |
                                        |
                  ---------------------------------------------------------
                  |                                                       |
                  |                                                       |
                  |                                                       |
      Redwood Statutory Trust I                           National Bank of the Redwoods
      -------------------------                           -----------------------------
      Santa Rosa, California                              Santa Rosa, California
      a Connecticut statutory trust                       a national bank
      Owned 100% by REB                                   Owned 100% by REB
                                                                          |
                                                                          |
                                                          -----------------
                                                          |
                                                          |
                                                          |
                                                          |
                                                          |
           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           |                      |                               |                              |
           |                      |                               |                              |
           |                      |                               |                              |
           |                      |                               |                              |
           |                      |                               |                              |
    Valley Financial       Redwood Merchant                       |                      NBR Real Estate
  Mortgage Corporation      Services, Inc           Allied Diversified Credit            Investment Trust
  --------------------     ----------------         -------------------------            ----------------
Santa Rosa, California     Santa Rosa, California     Santa Rosa, California             Santa Rosa, California
a California corporation   a California corporation   a California corporation           a Maryland corporation
(dba Santa Rosa Mortgage   Owned 100% by NBR          Owned 100% by NBR                  Owned 100% by NBR
and Investment Company)    Inactive                   Inactive
Owned 100% by NBR
Inactive
</TABLE>
In the Matter of: Ricky Ziv U.S. Department ofTransportation Federal Aviation Administration

FAADocket 

# HEA
Respondent FAA Case No. 2014WA910001 HON. Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Dept. ofTransportation ANSWER Comes Now, Respondent Ricky Ziv and files his answer as follows: I. Having received service ofthe FAA Complaint inthis matter Mr. Ziv answers as follows. 

### II. 1. Admit.
2. Admit. 3. Admit. 4. Deny. 5. Admit. 

### III. Denied to the extent that this paragraph asserts factual conclusions. Admit to the extent that counsel has represented the content of 14 C.F.R. §120.33(b) accurately and correctly.IV. I. Denied to the extent that the assertions herein are conclusory in nature. 

### 2. Denied to the extent that the assertions herein are conclusory in nature. Respectfully Submitted**J~** 

## w.\ ble**AFA:~cw**A Senior StaffAttorney Counsel for Respondent

Certificate ofService: By signature below I hereby certify that on June 13, 2014 a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing was sened upon: Don Bobertz, Esquire, via U.S. Mail at the Office ofthe Regional Counsel, PO Box 92007, Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 and facsimile transmission at (31 0) 725-6816. FAA 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building- Ste 2Wl000

----------**~ -~** 

## 7_~-~~-**Ja¥-.w~Vitrmt\e**
**Exhibit 32**

AMANASU TECHNO HOLDINGS CORPORATION**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer			Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,			As Adopted Pursuant to			Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

		  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of          the registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's          Quarterly Report on Form 10Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the "Form          10Q") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of          the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form          10Q, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition          and results of operations of the registrant.		

 Dated: May 19, 2009
			 By: /s/ Yukinori Yoshino					Yukinori Yoshino					President