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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00125-CR

BOBBY CARL VONCK, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 43rd District Court

of Parker County (CR16-0667)

October 15, 2020

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s judgment 

is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _/s/ Elizabeth Kerr__________________

 Justice Elizabeth Kerr
**Exhibit 34.2**

 

 

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

The Board of Directors

U.S. Bank National Association

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended November 3, 2019, except for servicing criteria Items 1122 (d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(vi)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the servicing platform covered by this report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.  Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year ended November 3, 2019, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

Minneapolis, Minnesota

December 20, 2019

 

----
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 106 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance 

at the end of a fiscal year to be deposited in the Treasury and used 

for deficit reduction or to reduce the Federal debt. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2013 

Mr. GINGREY of Georgia (for himself, Ms. TSONGAS, Mr. WESTMORELAND, 

Mr. POSEY, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. NUGENT, Mrs. 

BLACK, and Mr. WITTMAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To require any amounts remaining in a Member’s Representational Allowance at the end of a fiscal year to be 

deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction 

or to reduce the Federal debt. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Congressional Budget 

5 Accountability Act’’. 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•HR 106 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING AMOUNTS REMAINING IN MEMBERS’ 

2 REPRESENTATIONAL ALLOWANCES TO BE 

3 USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION OR TO RE4 DUCE THE FEDERAL DEBT. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, any amounts appropriated for Members’ Rep7 resentational Allowances for the House of Representatives 

8 for a fiscal year which remain after all payments are made 

9 under such Allowances for the year shall be deposited in 

10 the Treasury and used for deficit reduction, except that 

11 in the case of a fiscal year for which there is no Federal 

12 budget deficit, such amounts shall be used to reduce the 

13 Federal debt (in such manner as the Secretary of the 

14 Treasury considers appropriate). 

15 (b) REGULATIONS.—The Committee on House Ad16 ministration shall promulgate such regulations as may be 

17 necessary to carry out this section. 

18 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall apply with 

19 respect to fiscal year 2013 and each succeeding fiscal year. 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with
Robert L. MALONE, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6005

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

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

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A21A0444. MICHAEL PETIT v. TIDEWATER CREDIT SERVICES, LLC et

al.

Defendant Michael Petit appeals the state court’s order granting the plaintiff’s

motion for summary judgment and awarding the plaintiff $2,604.44 in damages,

$294.14 in pre-judgment interest, $314.86 in attorney fees, and court costs in this

contract action. We lack jurisdiction.

“Although the grant of a motion for summary judgment is in general directly

appealable, where the amount of the judgment is $10,000 or less, an application for

discretionary appeal is required.” Ca-Shar, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 204 Ga. App.

865, 865 (420 SE2d 810) (1992) (punctuation omitted); see also OCGA § 5-6-35 (a)

(6), (b). As the total judgment in favor of the plaintiff is for less than $10,000, the

entry of summary judgment provides no basis for a direct appeal in this case. See CaShar, Inc., 204 Ga. App. at 865-866. “Compliance with the discretionary appeals

procedure isjurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257,

257 (471 SE2d 60) (1996). 

October 07, 2020
Petit’s failure to comply with the discretionary appeal procedure deprives us

of jurisdiction over this direct appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Jennings v.

Moss, 235 Ga. App. 357, 357 (509 SE2d 655) (1998).

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

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.

10/07/2020
Order entered October 15, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01107

- CV

SASSIN & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, P.C., FAHE EM BADY SASSIN, E.E. "TREY" TAYLOR, III AND E.E. "TREY" TAYLOR & ASSO CIATES, PLLC, Appellant s

V.

ARA CELDA HERNANDEZ, IND IVIDUALLY AS NEXT FR IEND OF A.G. AND M.G ., MINORS, AND ANTONIO GONZALEZ, INDIVIDUAL LY AND AS NEXT FRIEN D OF J.G. AND A.G., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417

- 01724

- 2015



### O RDER

W e GRANT appellants Sassin & Associates Law Firm, P.C. and Faheem Bady Sassin’s

October 14, 2015 unopposed motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief be

filed no later than October 30, 2015

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1109 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require cost or price to the 

Federal Government be given at least equal importance as technical 

or other criteria in evaluating competitive proposals for defense contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require cost or 

price to the Federal Government be given at least equal 

importance as technical or other criteria in evaluating 

competitive proposals for defense contracts. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1109 IH

1 SECTION 1. REQUIREMENT THAT COST OR PRICE TO THE 

2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BE GIVEN AT LEAST 

3 EQUAL IMPORTANCE AS TECHNICAL OR 

4 OTHER CRITERIA IN EVALUATING COMPETI5 TIVE PROPOSALS FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTS. 

6 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 2305(a)(3) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘proposals; and’’ at the end of clause (ii) and 

9 all that follows through the end of the subparagraph and 

10 inserting the following: ‘‘proposals and that must be as11 signed importance at least equal to all evaluation factors 

12 other than cost or price when combined.’’. 

13 (b) WAIVER.—Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is fur14 ther amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting 

15 the following: 

16 ‘‘(B) The requirement of subparagraph 

17 (A)(ii) relating to assigning at least equal im18 portance to evaluation factors of cost or price 

19 may be waived by the head of the agency. The 

20 authority to issue a waiver under this subpara21 graph may not be delegated.’’. 

22 (c) REPORT.—Section 2305(a)(3) of such title is fur23 ther amended by adding at the end the following new sub24 paragraph: 

25 ‘‘(C) Not later than 180 days after the end 

26 of each fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1109 IH

1 shall submit to Congress, and post on a publicly 

2 available website of the Department of Defense, 

3 a report containing a list of each waiver issued 

4 by the head of an agency under subparagraph 

5 (B) during the preceding fiscal year.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Matthew D. PRISET, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA

No. 18-1572

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Steve ROMERO, Petitioner, v. Mike MCDONALD, Warden.

No. 19-6608

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

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

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4211 — Schmolz + Bickenbach/Ugitech)

(2006/C 182/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

----
# C_2018174EN.01000102.xml

| 23.5.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 174/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 174/1

---

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration

(Case M.8552 — Axalta Coating Systems/IVA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 174/02)

(Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004)

On 16 April 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration between Axalta Coating Systems and IVA. On 14 May 2018, the notifying party/ies informed the Commission that it/they withdrew its/their notification.

---
Filed 3/18/99 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1999 ND 40

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Paul E. Palmer, Defendant and Appellant

No. 980360

Appeal from the District Court of Williams County, Northwest Judicial District, the Honorable David W. Nelson, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Laura L. Gray, Assistant State’s Attorney, P.O. Box 2047, Williston, N.D. 58802-2047, for plaintiff and appellee.

Paul E. Palmer, pro se, P.O. Box 5521, Bismarck, N.D. 58506-5521, defendant and appellant..

David D. Hagler, Attorney General’s Office, 600 E. Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58505-0040, for amicus curiae.

State v. Palmer

No. 980360

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Paul E. Palmer appeals from the order denying his N.D.R.Crim.P. 35, motion to correct an illegal sentence, seeking a reversal of this Court’s prior decisions concerning N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6).  Palmer also argues the legislative intent of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6) shows a longer sentence was not intended to be permissible and that application of the statute in such a manner is constitutionally void for vagueness and ambiguity.

[¶2]We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  State v. Lindgren, 483 N.W.2d 777, 779 (N.D. 1992) (holding N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(5) as amended (currently codified at N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(6)) authorizes a trial court to re-sentence a defendant who violates a condition of probation to any sentence initially available); see also City of Bismarck v. Uhden, 513 N.W.2d 373, 376 (N.D. 1994) (recognizing that “[w]here courts of this State have construed statute and such construction is supported by the long acquiescence on the part of the legislative assembly and by the failure of the assembly to amend the law, it will be presumed that such interpretation of the statute is in accordance with legislative intent”).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring
Arthur Rodriguez BAUTISTA, Petitioner v. TEXAS.

No. 19-303

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 12, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Kevin Carroll ANDERSON, Petitioner v. Arthur B. GREENE, et al.

No. 19-6012

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 25, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

K.B.,

Petitioner

v.

J.J.W., JR.,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 203 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of July, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5 the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60706

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RANDALL ADAMS, also known as Wild Man,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:97-CR-15-ALL-WS

 

April 23, 1998

Before GARWOOD, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Randall Adams appeals his jury convictions for distributing

cocaine and “crack” cocaine base. Our review of the record and the

arguments and authorities convince us that no reversible error was

committed.

The argument to the weight of the evidence is meritless.

United States v. Resio-Trejo, 45 F.3d 907, 910-11 (5th Cir. 1995).
2

The district court’s finding that the actions depicted on the

videotape were not coerced is not clearly erroneous. United States

v. Gonzales, 79 F.3d 413, 419 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct.

183 (1996); United States v. Authement, 607 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th

Cir. 1979). The prejudicial effect of the prosecutor’s remarks, if

any, was not of great magnitude in the context of the entire trial.

United States v. Wallace, 32 F.3d 921, 926 (5th Cir. 1994). The

remarks did not constitute a constructive amendment of the

indictment. The evidence established that the substance was

“crack” cocaine base. U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), (n.D); United States v.

Metcalf, 898 F.2d 43, 46 (5th Cir. 1990). We have determined that

the sentencing disparity between cocaine and “crack” cocaine base

is not unconstitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Buchanan, 70

F.3d 818, 828 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal protection challenge),

cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1114, 1126 (1996); United States v. Cherry,

50 F.3d 338, 342-44 (5th Cir. 1995) (equal protection challenge);

United States v. Fisher, 22 F.3d 574, 579-80 (5th Cir. 1994) (due

process, equal protection, and Eighth Amendment challenges). Only

the court sitting en banc can reverse this precedent. United

States v. Mathena, 23 F.3d 87, 91 (5th Cir. 1994).

A claim for time served prior to the date of a federal

sentence must ordinarily proceed via a petition for habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. United States v. Mares, 868 F.2d 151, 151

(5th Cir. 1989). However, for reasons of judicial economy, the

court may address the question on the merits. Id. Adams’

unsupported allegation that his arrest was part of “one big
3

investigation” is unconvincing. Adams is not entitled to credit

for time served in state custody between state arrest on an

unrelated charge and his release to federal authorities. United

States v. Garcia-Gutierrez, 835 F.2d 585, 586 (5th Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
Jayvonne JOHNSON, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-6615

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Mitchell TAEBEL, Petitioner v. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al.

No. 19-5475

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 15, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# Official Journal C 409/27 N

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 409 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6327 November 2020 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 409

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6327 November 2020

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2020/C 409/01 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2020 to 31 October 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council) | 1 |
| 2020/C 409/02 | Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2020 to 31 October 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC) | 8 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2020/C 409/01

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2020 to 31 October 2020(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

(Published pursuant to Article 13 or Article 38 of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council)

1

2020/C 409/02

Summary of European Union decisions on marketing authorisations in respect of medicinal products from 1 October 2020 to 31 October 2020(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

(Decisions taken pursuant to Article 34 of Directive 2001/83/EC or Article 38 of Directive 2001/82/EC)

8

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
M A N D A T E

TO THE 103RD DISTRICT COURT of CAMERON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 11th day of

June, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

MI GWANG CONTACT LENS CO.,

LTD. AND CLEARLAB US, INC., Appellants,

v.

M. TERRI CAVAZOS CHAPA,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT

FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN

OF VICTORIA CHAPA, A MINOR Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00306-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 2012-DCL-1429-D)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

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. Costs of the appeal are adjudged

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 27th day of August, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
KELLSTROM INDUSTRIES, INC. BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 3, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED INITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,107,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               36,785,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,417,996
<INVENTORY>                                149,957,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           272,729,783
<PP&E>                                      19,759,387
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,004,202
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             434,050,496
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,147,181
<BONDS>                                    237,586,821
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        11,762
<OTHER-SE>                                 149,747,476
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               434,050,496
<SALES>                                    148,901,686
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           180,048,809
<CGS>                                      100,221,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              139,019,157
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,259,749
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             31,256,760
<INCOME-TAX>                                11,678,641
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         19,578,119
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                19,578,119
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.94
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.53
        

</TABLE>