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

- 00020

- CV

____ _______________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2 Denton County, Texas Trial Cour t No. CV

- 2018

- 03814
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### R OMEO 

### A MAONWU 

### , Appellant

V


### . M AHINDA 

### A. R UWANPATHIRANA 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION On August 2, 2019 , we notified Romeo Amaonwu th at the appellant ’ s brief filed on August 1, 2019 , is deficient, spe cifically listing the ways in which the brief does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure ; in particu lar, it is entirely
devoid of record citations and citatio n to authority

. See Tex. R. App. P. 9. 4 (e), (i) (3) , 38.1(a)

– ( b ), ( g

) , (i)

– (k) . We direc ted ap pellant to file an amended bri ef complying with the appellate rules no later than Monday, August 12, 2019 , and warned appel lant that
the failure to do so c o u ld result in our st riking the noncompliant brief and dismissing the appeal

. See Tex. R. App. P . 9, 38.8(a) (1) , 38.9 (a) , 42.3; 2nd Tex. App. (Fort Worth)
Loc. R. 1. Appellant has not responded to our letter and has not filed a compliant
brief

. Because ap p e l lant has failed to file a compliant amended brief despite being given t he opportunity to do s o , we strike a ppellant ’ s brief and d ismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).
Per Curiam
Delivered: August 26, 2019
Exhibit 99.1
                             Selected Information
                              Relating to Series 
                    1994-1 Certificates, Series 1995-1
                       Certificates, Series 1996-1
                Certificates, Series 1996-2 Certificates, and
                       Series 1997-1 Certificates from 
                  January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998
                 --------------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

 

                Series 1994-1    Series 1995-1     Series 1996-1   Series 1996-2    Series 1997-1    
                Floating Rate    6.50% Auto        5.50% Auto      Floating Rate    Floating Rate      
                Loan Asset       Loan Asset        Loan Asset      Loan Asset       Loan Asset
                Backed           Backed            Backed          Backed           Backed
                Certificates     Certificates      Certificates    Certificates     Certificates
                ------------     -------------     -------------   ------------     ------------



<S>             <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>


Interest
Paid            $ 58,787,840.83   $ 64,217,013.93 $ 43,884,722.26  $ 56,656,667.74   $ 43,440,987.31  

Servicing  
Fee Paid        $  9,999,999.96   $  9,999,999.96 $  8,000,000.04  $  9,600,000.00   $  7,500,000.00  


 
                    
                





</TABLE>

                                             -15-
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6640]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated November 23, 1994, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 6, 1994, (59 FR 62750), the Binding Site, Inc., 
5889 Oberlin Drive, Suite 101, San Diego, California 92121, made 
application to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be 
registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances 
listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Drug                               Schedule 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methaqualone (2565).........................................  I         
Lysergic acid diethylamide (7315)...........................  I         
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)................................  I         
3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (7405)....................  I         
Normorphine (9313)..........................................  I         
Methamphetamine (1105)......................................  II        
Amobarbital (2125)..........................................  II        
Secobarbital (2315).........................................  II        
Benzoylecgonine (9180)......................................  II        
Ethylmorphine (9190)........................................  II        
Methadone intermediate (9254)...............................  II        
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A comment was filed by a registered manufacturer. The comment was 
considered, however, DEA determined that the application should be 
approved. Therefore, pursuant to Section 1008(a) of the Controlled 
Substances Import and Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code 
of Federal Regulations, Section 1311.42, the above firm is granted 
registration as an importer of the basic class of controlled substance 
listed above.

    Dated: March 13, 1995.
Gene R. Haislip,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-6640 Filed 3-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
Amendment to Advance Formula Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 AMENDMENT TO ADVANCE FORMULA AGREEMENT 
 THIS AMENDMENT TO ADVANCE FORMULA
AGREEMENT, dated as of June 29, 2011, by and between Manitex LiftKing, ULC, an Alberta corporation (“Company”), and Comerica Bank, a Texas banking association, of Detroit, Michigan (“Bank”). 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, said parties desire to amend that certain Advance Formula Agreement between Company and Bank dated January 26, 2009 (as
amended, “AFA”); 
 NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows: 

1. Section 2(a) of the AFA is amended to read as follows: 
 “(a) eighty-five percent (85%) of its Eligible Accounts (as hereinafter defined); plus” 
 2. This Amendment shall be effective as of the date hereof. Except as modified hereby, all of the terms and conditions of the AFA shall remain in full force and effect. 

3. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, of which this is one, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 WITNESS the due execution hereof as of the day and year first above written. 

 

									
	BANK:	 		 	COMPANY:
			
	COMERICA BANK	 		 	MANITEX LIFTKING, ULC
					
	By:	 	 /s/ James Q. Goudie III
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ David H. Gransee

	Its:	 	 VP & AGM
	 		 	Its:	 	 VP & CFO
#### Daniel PITTMAN, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 16023.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Aug. 22, 1989.

*340Charles E. Brown, Gainesville, for mov-ant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

MAUS, Judge.

A jury found movant Daniel Pittman guilty of three counts of sodomy. He was senteqced to imprisonment for terms of five years, five years and ten years, to run concurrently. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on appeal. *State v. Pittman,*731 S.W.2d 43 (Mo.App.1987).

His motion under Rule 27.261 to set aside those convictions and sentences was denied after an evidentiary hearing. He appeals from that denial.

The following is the movant’s sole point on appeal. “The hearing court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that appellant had been adequately represented by trial defense attorney.” This point presents nothing for appellate review. Movant’s appeal is'properly denied on that basis. *Forshee v. State,*763 S.W.2d 352 (Mo.App.1988).

Moreover, consideration of the record and movant’s argument does not aid him. The only assertion in his motion and m the evidence that even approaches a ground for relief is his counsel’s failure to interview and call certain witnesses. Mov-ant testified he gave the names of several potential witnesses. He also said that “A. ... The relatives who were with me, who were expecting to testify, were told, ‘Don’t worry about it. We’ll get to you tomorrow.’ ...” The underlying criminal case was a one-day trial presided over by circuit judge A.F. Turner.

Counsel testified concerning his preparation. He stated that he interviewed the possible witnesses known to him or explained why he did not. He categorically denied the above assertions of movant.

Movant’s testimony also included the following. “A. ... A1 Turner did call me at my home and asked me to run his campaign, ...” Judge Turner denied this assertion. He added, “A. ... I might possibly have talked to Mr. Pittman, but I wouldn’t have been too interested in getting Mr. Pittman on board with my campaign because he was a relatively newcomer there_” The motion court was entitled to reject the testimony of movant. *Thomas v. State,*759 S.W.2d 622 (Mo.App.1988).

The motion court found that movant’s able and experienced “defense counsel effectively and aggressively represented him....” That finding is supported by the record. The judgment of the motion court is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and PREWITT, J., concur.

1

. Movant’s sentence was pronounced before and his motion under Rule 27.26 was pending on January 1, 1988. Post-conviction relief is governed by the provisions of former Rule 27.26.
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 33-49758, 33-85744,333-07541, 333-85131, 333-65812, 333-84356, 333-102185, 333-112815 and 333-131703 on Form S-8 andNos. 333-69999, 333-53484 and 333-98475 on Form S-3 of our report dated June 13, 2005 relating tothe financial statements and financial statement schedule of Abaxis, Inc. for the year ended March31, 2005 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Abaxis, Inc. for the year ended March 31,2007./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803,03/(//(5&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*+7&$67,521



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
         
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                              1
<CASH>                                  18,455
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                           14,478
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       104,559
<PP&E>                               1,932,230
<DEPRECIATION>                          93,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,943,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   89,686
<BONDS>                              1,152,133
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  320,085
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<COMMON>                                     0
<OTHER-SE>                             377,347
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,943,057
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        82,040
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           66,201
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         1,505
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      19,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            338
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        338
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                               338
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (0.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (0.26)
        

</TABLE>
---

Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Maury Austin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.




Date: February 8, 2011
By:
/s/ MAURY AUSTIN

Maury Austin

Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,

MIPS Technologies, Inc












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


---
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2578

JAE Electronics, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

380392/87(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*6667$,1/(6667((/



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12





,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WALKER DIGITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EXPEDIA, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee,

AND

ZAPPOS.COM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-1520, 2014-1080 

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 11-CV-0313, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson.
2 WALKER DIGITAL, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 

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

WALKER DIGITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________ 

2013-1521, 2014-1077

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 12-CV-0140, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson.

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

WALKER DIGITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BARNES & NOBLE, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________ 

2013-1522, 2014-1090

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 12-CV-0141, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson.

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

WALKER DIGITAL, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
WALKER DIGITAL, LLC v. EXPEDIA, INC. 3

v.

EXPEDIA, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

_______________________ 

2013-1523, 2014-1081

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 12-CV-0142, Judge Sue L. 

Robinson.

______________________ 

Decided: December 30, 2014

______________________ 

 THIS OPINION HAS BEEN ISSUED UNDER 

SEAL.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2314

Primex Family of Companies:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
Abatement Order filed March 18, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00043

- CR

____________ HUNG PHUOC LE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. 1371912



### ORDER
A ccording to information provided to this court
, a ppellant is not represented by counsel in this appeal. Our record contains appellant’s request for appointment of counsel and an order from the trial court finding appellant indi gent for purposes
of hiring counsel and preparation of the record. The order does not contain an appointment of counsel, however. In addition, n o reporter’s record has been filed
in this case. Walter Johnson
, a substitute court reporter, informed this cour t that appellant had not made arrangements for payment for t he reporter’s record. SeeTex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A) . Accordingly, we enter the following order. See Tex.

R. App. P. 35.3(c).

We ORDER the judge of the 185th District C ourt to determine whether appellant is entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge
shall appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge may conduct a hearing if necessary and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of any hearing a nd a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s order regarding the appointment of counsel and preparation of the reporter’s record

. These records
shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before April 18 , 20 14

. The appeal is abated, treate d as a closed case, and removed from this court’ s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court ’ s active docket when the supplemental record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal fil ed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion

.

PER CURIAM
**DM** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 19 - 0 323 STATE OF MONTANA ,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DUSTIN HAYES KNOX ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including Octo ber 20 , 2020 , within which to prepare, serve, and file its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 11 2020

09/11/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0323
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-11669

Motorcar Parts of America, Inc:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3670

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel