alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-1- 



    	 



    








    	-2- 



    	 



    








    	-3- 



    	 



    








    	-4- 



    	 



    








    	-5- 



    	 



    








    	-6- 



    	 



    








    	-7- 



    	 



    








    	-8- 



    	 



    








    	-9- 



    	 



    








    	-10- 



    	 



    








    	-11- 



    	 



    








    	-12- 



    	 



    








    	-13- 



    	 



    








    	-14- 



    	 



    








    	-15- 



    	 



    








    	-16- 



    	 



    








    	-17- 



    	 



    








    	-18- 



    	 



    








    	-19- 



    	 



    








    	-20- 



    	 



    








    	-21- 



    	 



    








    	-22- 



    	 



    








    	-23- 



    	 



    








    	-24- 



    	 



    








    	-25- 



    	 



    








    	-26- 



    	 



    








    	-27- 



    	 



    








    	-28- 



    	 



    








    	-29- 



    	 



    








    	-30- 



    	 



    








    	-31- 



    	 



    








    	-32- 



    	 



    








    	-33- 



    	 



    








    	-34- 



    	 



    








    	-35- 



    	 



    








    	-36- 



    	 



    








    	-37- 



    	 



    








    	-38- 



    	 



    








    	-39- 



    	 



    








    	-40- 



    	 



    








    	-41- 



    	 



    








    	-42- 



    	 



    








    	-43- 



    	 



    








    	-44- 



    	 



    








    	-45- 



    	 



    








    	-46- 



    	 



    








    	-47-
### DecerfffoerJ.2,2015 

### Re: Exparte Tyrone Mitchell/ WR-82,097-02 

## DEC162015 Dear Clerk/ 

### I am writing to find out what the status is onmywrit of 

## habeascorpusfiledwiththiscourt in10/2014^.^Jj^e^fcg&e card showing it had been filed but have never been contacted since. I have clearly shown that I am actually innocent. But due to the prosecutor's office not fullfilling their duty to resolve my issues I have been unable to receieve any relief. I do not have the money to hire a lawyer. All I have wanted is to have the medical examiner re-evaluate the cause of death. Because the lawyer appointed me by the court "works for the court." The medical examiner was not called to testify. The prosecutor and court appointed lawyer "stipulated" to the medical examiner's report. And used a police officer to present "certain portions" to the jury. I did not cause the death of the person whordied! But the Court's rely on the findings of the same court that scammed 

### the jury to start,with. How am I supposed to get my issue before the courtif the court relies on the lies of-the prosecutor to decide my issues? I want to know if my habeas corpus is being considered as an actual innocence claim? Thanks.... Sincerely, Milton Tyrone Mitchell T.DCJ. # 1811062 3001, S. Emily Dr. Beeville, TX 78102 

## RECEIVEDIN 

# COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(7)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(2)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(1)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - illinois(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - ohio(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(2)
              - (-)vermont(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(1)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Data Access        March 4, 2019        National Water Information System (NWIS) Mapper
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.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

          - [Docket No. USTR-2008-0036]

### Correction

In notice document E9-5933 beginning on page 11613 in the issue of Wednesday, March 18, 2009 make the following correction:

On page 11614, in the second column, after the signature block, Annex I and Annex II are reprinted in full to read as set forth below:
      ( print page 12403)          ( print page 12404)          ( print page 12405)          ( print page 12406)    

[FR Doc. Z9-5933 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(188)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2005)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(228)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(15)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - (-)documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

## By Year

Technical Memos        April 7, 1997        TM97-04S Collection, processing, and analysis of ground-water samples for tritium/helium-3 dating;
Kenel DOLCE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0509

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>


EXHIBIT 24

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                -----------------

         I, the undersigned Director and/or Officer of PivX Solutions, Inc., a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"), hereby constitute ROBERT N. SHIVELY and
SCOTT D. OLSON and each of them singly, my true and lawful attorneys with full
power to them and each of them to sign for me, and in my name and in the
capacity or capacities indicated below, the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, and any amendments thereto.

<TABLE>
<S>     <C>

    SIGNATURE                                         TITLE                                 DATE
    ---------                                         -----                                 ----



                                   Chairman of the Board, President and Chief       March ___, 2005
-----------------------------         Executive Officer, Chief Financial
Robert N. Shively                         Officer and Treasurer
                                      (Principal Executive, Financial and
                                               Accounting Officer)



                                                  Director                          March ___, 2005
-----------------------------
Geoff Shively


                                                  Director                          March ___, 2005
-----------------------------
D. Glen Raiger


                                                  Director                          March ___, 2005
-----------------------------
Wes Nichols


                                                  Director                          March ___, 2005
-----------------------------
Ashwin Rangan


</TABLE>
Monterius Desean SHARP, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1379

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
(107 So. 401)

No. 25428.

#### R. J. VALLEE, Adm’r, et al. v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO.

(Feb. 1, 1926.)

Appeal from Seventeenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Vermilion; W. W. Bailey, Judge.

Weeks & Weeks, of New Iberia, and Denegre, Leovy & Chaffe, of New Orleans, for appellant.

John Nugier and Kitchell & Boudreaux, both of Abbeville, for appellees.

OVERTON, J.

In this suit the administrator of the Succession of Aliface Faulk, and the widow and children of the decedent, sue defendant on a policy, written by it, payable *to*the executors or administrators-of the deceased, for the face amount of $2,000, and containing the double indemnity clause, the double indemnity being payable in the event of the death of the insured from bodily injury, effected solely through external, violent, and accidental means.

The policy contains the same clauses, relative to suicide, as does the policy in the case of Rena Faulk v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York (No. 25429) 107 So. 395,1 this day decided. The suit is on the double indemnity clause. The defenses are the same as those in the Rena Faulk Case, cited supra. This and the Rena Faulk Case were tried on the same evidence.

The trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs; that is, in favor of the Succession of Faulk for the full amount of the double indemnity, with 5 per cent, per annum interest thereon from February 7, 1921, until paid, reserving <to the widow and heirs of Faulk the right to recover from said succession whatever interest they may have in the proceeds of said policy.

The issues in the Rena Faulk Case and those in the present being identical, for the reasons assigned in the former case, the judgment herein appealed from is affirmed; appellant to pay the costs.

ROGERS, J., dissents.

1

 Ante, p. 529.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(7)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(33)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_video(10)
              - multimedia_video-149194(5)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149198(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - hawaii(9)
              - (-)washington(1)

## By Year

B-roll        October 31, 2004        Mount St. Helens: Steam, Ash Emissions and Dome Growth, October 2004
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

IN RE: : CHAPTER 11

: 

PATH MEDICAL, LLC, : CASE NO. 21-18338-SMG

PATH MEDICAL CENTER HOLDINGS, : CASE NO. 21-18339-SMG

 INC., :

: Jointly Administered

DEBTORS. : Lead Case No. 21-18338-SMG

________________________________________

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

Comes now Martin P. Ochs and gives notice of his appearance on behalf of Mary Ida 

Townson, United States Trustee for Region 21.

I hereby certify that I am admitted to the Bars of the States of Georgia and New York and 

that I am excepted from additional qualifications to practice in this Court pursuant to Local Rule 

9011-4 pertaining to attorneys representing the United States government.

MARY IDA TOWNSON

UNITED STATES TRUSTEE

REGION 21

By: /s/ . 

Martin P. Ochs

Georgia Bar No. 091608

United States Department of Justice

Office of the United States Trustee

362 Richard Russell Building

75 Ted Turner Drive SW

Atlanta, Georgia 30303

(404) 331-4509

martin.p.ochs@usdoj.gov

Case 21-18338-SMG Doc 551 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY

COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

FLORIDA WEST PALM BEACH 

DIVISION

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re:

CHRISTI LEE STRAUB Case No.: 21-13230-EPK

 Chapter 7

Debtor.

/

CHRISTI LEE STRAUB Adv. No.: 21-01155-EPK

Plaintiff,

v.

MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN 

AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES

ANDTHE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA.

Defendants.

/

PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED MOTION FOR DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT

AS TO DEFENDANT, MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY

Plaintiff, CHRISTI LEE STRAUB., by and through her undersigned counsel, moves for 

the entry of a Default Final Judgment against Defendant MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION 

LOAN AUTHORITY, and in support thereof state:

1. The Adversary Complaint was filed on May 18, 2021 (DE 1) (the “Complaint”).

2. The Summons and Notice of Pretrial/Trial in an Adversary Proceeding (DE 2) (the 

“Summons”), and Order Setting Filing and Disclosure Requirements for Pretrial and Trial (DE 3) 

(the “Order”) were issued on May 19, 2021.

Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 41 Filed 10/31/22 Page 1 of 2
2

3. An answer to the Adversary Complaint was due on or before June 23, 2021.

4. The Summons, Complaint, and Order were properly served on Defendant, Missouri 

Higher Education Loan Authority via Certified Mail (70201810000184333191) which was 

delivered on July 30, 2021; and U.S. Mail on July 19, 2021, and a Certificate of Service filed as to 

same (DE 9).

5. To date, Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority has not filed an answer or 

responsive pleading with the time fixed by the Court or by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012(a).

6. On August 26, 2022, a Clerk’s Entry of Default was entered (DE 31).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, CHRISTI LEE STRAUB, respectfully requests that this Court 

enter a Default Final Judgment against Defendant MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN 

AUTHORITY.

RULE 7055-1 VERIFICATION

Pursuant to Local Rule 7055-1, I hereby verify under penalty of perjury, that the Defendant 

MISSOURI HIGHER EDUCATION LOAN AUTHORITY has been properly served with the 

Complaint, that no response has been served on the Plaintiff or her undersigned counsel, and that 

the Defendant, being a corporate entity, is not a member of the military service.

Dated this 31st day of October, 2022 VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A.

500 N.E. 4th Street, Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 765-3166

Facsimile: (954) 756-7103

Email: Chad@cvhlawgroup.com

 By: /s/ Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.

Chad T. Van Horn, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 64500

Case 21-01155-MAM Doc 41 Filed 10/31/22 Page 2 of 2
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(5)
              - products_publications(10)
              - products_web_tools(2)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(5)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)

## By Location

              - alaska(5)
              - (-)arizona(1)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(28)
              - colorado(1)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(4)
              - idaho(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - mississippi(1)
              - montana(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - puerto rico(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(5)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        February 22, 2018        Ungulates in a Warmer Climate
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LATOYA RENEE HENDERSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00174

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3

of Ellis County, Texas

(TC# 1911450CR )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 17 TH DAY OF AUGUST , 20 22

.

JEFF ALLEY, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
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 of Dendo Global Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Cornelius A. Hofman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350,
as adopted pursuant to  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


   /s/ Cornelius A. Hofman
   Cornelius A. Hofman
   President, Secretary, Treasurer, CFO
   August 8, 2003
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 11, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00476-CR

ROLAND RAMOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 122nd District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 98-CR-0766

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant attempts to appeal a February 7, 2020 order denying his motion for 

judgment nunc pro tunc, which sought to reform a judgment or judgments signed in 

1999. The denial of a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc is not an appealable order. 

See Sanchez v. State, 112 S.W.3d 311, 312 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no 

pet.); Everett v. State, 82 S.W.3d 735, 735 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, pet dism’d.); 

cf. Ex parte Florence, 319 S.W.3d 695, 696 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (relief from 

denial of motion for judgment nunc pro tunc may be sought by filing application for 
2

writ of mandamus).

On July 8, 2020, this court notified all parties of the court’s intention to 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction unless any party showed, within 21 days 

of the letter, that the court has jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). No response 

has been filed.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jewell, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Milton THOMPSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3892

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 14, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
(106 So. 700)

No. 26984.

#### A. A. THERIOT et al. v. John M. CAFFERY et al.

(Nov. 30, 1925.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1926.)

Appeal from Twenty-Third Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Mary; Walter T. Gilmore, Judge.

Donelson Caffery, of New Orleans, Emmet Alpha, of Shreveport, and Margaret Wooster, of Franklin, for appellant Caffery.

Cullen R. Liskow, of Lake Charles, for appellant Humble Oil & Refining Co.

F. E. Delahoussaye and Weeks & Weeks, all of New Iberia, for appellees.

ROGERS, J.

In the court below this suit was consolidated for the purposes of the trial, with the suit appearing on our docket under No. 26985, 106 So. 698,2 and this day decided. The defendant Humble Oil & Refining Company filed an exception of misjoinder of parties defendant. This exception was sustained, and the suit as to them was dismissed. Oh the merits, judgment was rendered against the remaining defendant, John M. Caffery, and he has appealed therefrom.

Although plaintiffs did not appeal from the judgment dismissing the Humble Oil & Refining Company from the suit, they have filed a motion in this court for an amendment of the judgment against the defendant John'M. Caffery so as to decree the Humble Oil & Refining Company a party to and bound by the said judgment. However, the disposition we are making of the case dispenses with the necessity of our formally passing on this motion.

*79Both suits involve the validity of the' same patent. The difference between them is that this suit is for the recovery of $4,000, and certain rights and royalties reserved, while its companion suit is for a part of the land itself. Inasmuch as the issues affecting the ownership of the fund and royalty rights and those affecting the ownership of the land are the same, the reasons announced by us in our decision in case No. 26985 are appropriate to and decisive of the instant case.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is set aside, and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of defendant John M. Gaffery, rejecting plaintiffs’ demands, and dismissing their suit at their cost.

LAND, J., takes no part.

THOMPSON, J., dissents.

2

 Ante, p. 72.