alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Administrative Office of the United States Courts FOR COURT USE ONLY

TRANSCRIPT ORDER

DUE DATE:

2AO 435

AZ Form (Rev. )

1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE

4. FIRM NAME

5. MAILING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE 8. ZIP CODE

9. CASE NUMBER 10. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS

11. 12. 

13. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS

14. 15. STATE

16. ORDER FOR

APPEAL CRIMINAL

NON-APPEAL CIVIL

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT

IN FORMA PAUPERIS

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER 6SHFLI\

17. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)

PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)

TESTIMONY (6SHFLI\

PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING

OTHER (6SHFLI\)

VOIR DIRE

OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)

OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff)

CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)

OPINION OF COURT

JURY INSTRUCTIONS

SENTENCING

BAIL HEARING

18. ORDER

CATEGORY

ORIGINAL + 1

(original to Court,

copy to ordering party)

FIRST

COPY

# OF

ADDITIONAL

COPIES

DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS

(&heck all that apply) ESTIMATED COSTS

30 DAYS  

PAPER COPY

3')HPDLO

$6&,,HPDLO

14 DAYS  

7 DAYSH[SHGLWHG  

DAILY

 

HOURLY

 

REALTIME

 

E-MAIL ADDRESS

NOTE: IF ORDERING 025(7+$121()250$7,

THERE WILL BE AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 19. SIGNATURE

20. DATE

TRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY

ESTIMATE TOTAL

PROCESSED BY PHONE NUMBER

ORDER RECEIVED DATE BY

DEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES

TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT

ORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED

TO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT

TOTAL REFUNDED

PARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE

DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY

'$<6

CERTIFICATION (19. & 20.)By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges

(deposit plus additional).

Austin M. Berry 202-616-2948 08/24/2023

U.S. Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section

1301 New York Ave. NW Suite 1100 Washington DC 20530

2:18cr422 Judge Humetewa 8/29/2023 to 11/09/2023

US v. Lacey et al. Phoenix Arizona

✔

✔

entirety of trial proceedings

✔

✔ rough drafts

Austin.Berry2@usdoj.gov; peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

/s/ Austin M. Berry

08/24/2023

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1728 Filed 08/24/23 Page 1 of 1
#### Ida R. JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66458.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 14, 1995.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 23, 1995.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 24, 1995.

Dave Hemingway, St. Louis, for appellant.

Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Ida R. Jones, appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis denying her Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the order of the circuit court is not clearly erroneous. As we further find no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
2:08-cv-14390-SFC-SDP Doc # 22 Filed 03/30/10 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 529
2:08-cv-14390-SFC-SDP Doc # 22 Filed 03/30/10 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 530
2:08-cv-14390-SFC-SDP Doc # 22 Filed 03/30/10 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 531
2:08-cv-14390-SFC-SDP Doc # 22 Filed 03/30/10 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 532
2:08-cv-14390-SFC-SDP Doc # 22 Filed 03/30/10 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 533
#### KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Movant, v. Pat Douglas DAVIS, Respondent.

No. 93-SC-542-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Feb. 24, 1994.

Barbara S. Rea, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for movant.

Pat Douglas Davis, Versailles, for respondent.

*OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION*

The Kentucky Bar Association has recommended that Respondent, Pat Douglas Davis, be suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of six (6) months. Respondent was found guilty of having made a false representation to District Judge Craig Bradley of the Wood-ford District Court concerning her request for his recusal from a pending case. She informed the court that she had “sent the recusal to the Supreme Court,” the fact of the statement having been verified by the audio tapes. In fact, no such motion or request for recusal had been sent to the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice.

Neither the Kentucky Bar Association nor the Respondent requested review. However, we issued a notice of review after which the Kentucky Bar Association filed its brief. No response or brief has been received from the Respondent. As such, and it otherwise appearing that the evidence supports the findings and recommendation of the Kentucky Bar Association,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

That the Respondent, Pat Douglas Davis, be, and she is hereby suspended from the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Kentucky for a period of six (6) months, with such suspension to run consecutively with the prior six (6) months suspension ordered April 15, 1993, and to continue until such time as *791she is reinstated to the practice of law by order of this Court pursuant to SCR 3.510.

Respondent is directed to pay the costs of this action in the amount of $773.11.

Pursuant to SCR 3.390, the Respondent shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the entry of this order, notify all clients in writing of her inability to represent them and furnish photostatic copies of said letters of notice to the director of the Kentucky Bar Association.

All concur, except STEPHENS, C.J., not sitting.

/s/Charles M. Leibson Deputy Chief Justice
#### Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 68971.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 26, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 1996.

Lonnie Snelling, University City, Pro Se.

Lashly & Baer, P.C., Kenneth C. Brostron and Nelson G. Wolff, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before PUDLOWSKI, P.J., and SIMON and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

In this case, Lonnie Snelling filed suit against the Board of Education for inverse condemnation. Count I of Snelling’s petition asserts that the Board of Education inversely condemned his land by allowing activities to take place on school property that purportedly resulted in damage to Snelling’s adjacent property. Count II of Snelling’s petition requested injunctive relief.

Snelling appeals from three interlocutory orders made final upon the trial court’s dismissal of the cause without prejudice. The first order, entered on February 24, 1994, sustained the Board of Education’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed two of the defendants from Count II of Snell-ing’s Third Amended Petition. The second order, entered on July 7, 1994, sustained the Board’s motion to dismiss the remaining defendants from Count II of Snelling’s Fourth Amended Petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count II was thereby dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The third order, entered on July 26, 1995, sustained the Board’s motion for sanctions against Snelling due to his failure to appear at his own properly noticed deposition and ordered Snelling to pay the Board $43.10 for the cost of taking the deposition.

The first order to dismiss dated February 24, 1994 and the second order to dismiss dated July 7, 1994 are sustained by sufficient grounds to support each motion to dismiss. The third order imposing sanctions dated July 26, 1995 is not an abuse of the court’s discretion. An extended opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Madrona Ventures Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending January 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Reese
Baglole, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
12th day of March, 2007.


/s/ Reese Baglole
------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer
1

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

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

3060 North Swan Road

Tucson, Arizona 85712-1225

Telephone (520) 325-4200

Facsimile (520) 325-4224

Stephen M. Weiss

PCC No. 61412

State Bar No. 002261

sweiss@karpweiss.com

Attorney for Defendant Joye Vaught

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

 v.

7. JOYE VAUGHT

Defendant

 

 CR-18-00422-07-PHX-SMB

DEFENDANT VAUGHT’S JOINDER

IN DEFENDANTS LACEY AND 

LARKIN’S JOINT STATUS REPORT 

FOR APRIL 23, 2019 STATUS 

HEARING (Doc #537)

The Defendant Joye Vaught, by and through her attorney Stephen M. Weiss, 

hereby joins in Defendants Lacey’s and Larkin’s Joint Status Report for April 23, 2019, 

Status Hearing (Doc #537). The factual and legal matters addressed in Defendants’ 

Joint Status Report apply with equal force to Defendant Vaught, and Defendant Vaught

adopts the positions set forth in the Joint Status Report as if fully set forth herein.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2019.

KARP & WEISS, P.C.

By /s/ Stephen M. Weiss 

Stephen M. Weiss

Attorney for Defendant Vaught

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 533 Filed 04/19/19 Page 1 of 2
2

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of April, 2019, I electronically transmitted 

the foregoing Joinder in Defendants Lacey’s and Larkin’s Joint Status Report for April 

23, 2019, Status Hearing (Doc #527) on behalf of Joye Vaught to the Clerk of the Court 

via the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of electronic Filing to the 

following CM/ECF registrants:

Kevin Rapp: kevin.rapp@usdoj.gov

Margaret Perlmeter: margaret.perlmeter@usdoj.gov 

John J. Kucera: john.kucera@usdoj.gov

Reginald E. Jones: reginald.jones4@usdoj.gov

Peter Kozinets: peter.kozinets@usdoj.gov

Andrew Stone: andrew.stone@usdoj.gov

Amanda Wick: amanda.wick@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Government

Bruce S. Feder: bf@federlawpa.com

James C. Grant: jamesgrant@dwt.com

Michael D. Kimerer: MDK@kimerer.com

Michael L. Piccarreta: mlp@pd-law.com

Paul J. Cambria, Jr.: pcambria@lglaw.com

Robert Corn-Revere: bobcornrevere@dwt.com

Rhonda Neff: rneff@kimerer.com

Erin E. McCampbell: emccampbell@lglaw.com

Thomas Henry Bienert, Jr.: tbienert@bmkattorneys.com

Daniel James Quigley: quigley@djqplc.com

Anthony R. Bisconti: tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com

Kenneth M. Miller: kmiller@bmkattorneys.com

Whitney Z. Bernstein: wbernstein@bmkattorneys.com

Ariel A. Neuman: aan@birdmarella.com

Gary S. Lincenberg: gsl@birdmarella.com

Gopi K. Panchapakesan: gkp@birdmarella.com

Anne Michelle Chapman: anne@mscclaw.com

Lee David Stein: lee@mscclaw.com

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 533 Filed 04/19/19 Page 2 of 2
#### Deborah Allyn LARSON, Appellant, v. David Allen LARSON, Respondent.

No. 65120.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Feb. 21, 1995.

*823Donald K. Gerard, Clayton, for appellant.

Dennis Neil Smith, William Bernard Hal-ler, Ellisville, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Wife appeals from the classification and division of marital property pursuant to the entry of a decree of dissolution. We have reviewed the findings and the record on appeal and find no error of law. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the trial court’s decree pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
1

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

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC and Kezhaya Law PLC

101 E. Pennington St. 1202 NE McClain Rd.

Suite 201 Bentonville, Arkansas 72712

Tucson, Arizona 85701 phone: (479) 431-6112

Telephone: (520) 358-4089 fax: (479) 282-2892

Facsimile: (520) 628-4275 email: matt@kezhaya.law

Stuart P. de Haan, State Bar No. 26664 Matthew A. Kezhaya, phv, Ark. Bar # 2014161

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

The Satanic Temple, Inc. et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Scottsdale,

Defendant

Case No. 18-cv-00621-DGC

Proposed order denying costs in full

COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through counsel of record, in objection to the City’s bill 

of costs. The Court, being well and sufficiently advised of the facts and law herein, finds 

and orders that the City’s bill of costs should be and hereby is DENIED IN FULL. The parties 

shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Respectfully submitted on February 28, 2020,

On behalf of Plaintiffs

By /s/ Stuart P. de Haan and /s/ Matthew A. Kezhaya

Stuart P. de Haan, 

AZ Bar No. 026664

Matthew A. Kezhaya, 

AR Bar No. 2014161 (pro hac vice)

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs

de Haan Law Firm, PLLC

101 E Pennington Avenue, Suite 201

Tucson, Arizona 85701

1202 NE McClain Rd

Bentonville AR 72712

Phone (520) 358-4089 (479) 431-6112

Fax (520) 628-4275 (479) 282-2892

Email stu.dehaan@gmail.com matt@kezhaya.law

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 98-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 1 of 2
2

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on February 28, 2020 I electronically transmitted this document to the 

Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic 

Filing to the appropriate CM/ECF registrants. /s/ Stuart de Haan

Case 2:18-cv-00621-DGC Document 98-1 Filed 02/28/20 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 1 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 2 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 3 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 4 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 5 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 6 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 7 of 8
Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 302 Filed 09/11/18 Page 8 of 8
EXHIBIT 8.1

                        List of significant Subsidiaries

The following is a list of Ispat International N.V.'s significant subsidiaries,
each wholly-owned indirectly through intermediate holding companies:

     o    Ispat Inland Inc., incorporated in the United States of America
          ("Ispat Inland");

     o    Ispat Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., incorporated in Mexico ("Imexsa");

     o    Ispat Sidbec Inc., incorporated in Canada ("Ispat Sidbec");

     o    Caribbean Ispat Limited, incorporated in Trinidad and Tobago ("CIL");

     o    Ispat Europe Group S.A., incorporated in Luxembourg ("Ispat Europe");

     o    Ispat Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH, incorporated in Germany ('Ispat
          Hamburg");

     o    Ispat Stahlwerk Ruhrort GmbH and Ispat Walzdraht Hochfeld GmbH, each
          incorporated in Germany (collectively referred to as "Ispat
          Duisburg"); and

     o    Ispat Unimetal S.A., incorporated in France, ("Ispat Unimetal").
---

---

Exhibit 13.2

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report
of RiT Technologies Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Simona Green, Vice President Finance 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, as amended and

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

Date: March 30, 2009

|By: /s/ Simona Green
Simona GreenVice President Finance
|---------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, George A. de Urioste, certify that: 

 

1.  I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Chordiant Software, Inc.; 

 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annualreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report; 

 

4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) forthe registrant and have: 

 

a.  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared; 

 

b.  designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to bedesigned under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

c.  evaluated the effectiveness ofthe registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation;and 

 

d.  disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

5.  The registrant’sother certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): 

 

a.  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b.  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
EXHIBIT
32.1
 
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 (18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)
 
 In
connection with the quarterly report of Axcess Medical Imaging Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kay Daniel Carter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 ·
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and
 ·
              The
      information in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the
    Company.
 
 Date:
November 14, 2008
 
 /s/
      Kay Daniel Carter
 Chief
Financial Officer
 (Principal
Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 122 (Monday, June 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16003]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs


Receipt of Petition for Federal Acknowledgment of Existence as an 
Indian Tribe

    This is published in the exercise of authority delegated by the 
Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 
209 DM 8.
    Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(a) (formerly 25 CFR 54.8(a)) notice is 
hereby given that the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, 8200 Lott Cary Road, 
Providence Forge, Virginia 23140, has filed a petition for 
acknowledgment by the Secretary of the Interior that the group exists 
as an Indian tribe. The petition was received by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs (BIA) on March 19, 1996, and was signed by members of the 
group's governing body.
    This is a notice of receipt of petition and does not constitute 
notice that the petition is under active consideration. Notice of 
active consideration will be sent by mail to the petitioner and other 
interested parties at the appropriate time.
    Under Section 83.9(a) (formerly 54.8(d)) of the Federal 
regulations, interested parties may submit factual and/or legal 
arguments in support of or in opposition to the group's petition. Any 
information submitted will be made available on the same basis as other 
information in the BIA's files. Such submissions will be provided to 
the petitioner upon receipt by the BIA. The petitioner will be provided 
an opportunity to respond to such submissions prior to a final 
determination regarding the petitioner's status.
    The petition may be examined, by appointment, in the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and 
Research, Room 1362-MIB, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, 
Phone: (202) 208-3592.

    Dated: May 28, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-16003 Filed 6-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 25, 2015

NO. 03-14-00341-CV

James Richardson, Appellant

v.

Maria Torres, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on April 1, 2014. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Appellant shall 

pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.