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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael Lacey, et al., 

 

 Defendants.

NO. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL (BSB)

ORDER RE:

JOINT MOTION FOR 

EXTENSIONS OF TIME 

The Court having reviewed and considered the Joint Motion for Extensions of Time, and 

good cause showing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s time for filing the Reply on Defendant’s 

Motion for Disclosure (Doc. 202) is extended from August 9, 2018 to August 16, 2018, and the 

government’s time for filing the Reply on the Government’s Motion to Resolve Privilege Issues is 

extended from August 10, 2018 to August 17, 2018.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) from ______________ to 

__________.

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 260-1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 1
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10658

HON. SEAN F. COX

MOHAMED G. ZAHER a/k/a

MOHAMED J. ZAHER a/k/a

MOHAMED GAMIL ZAHER,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

DISMISSAL OF SHOW CAUSE ORDER

This Court issued an Order [Document No. 13] on July 1, 2009, instructing Defendant to

show cause why the unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff [Document No.

11] should not be granted. After reviewing Defendant’s Response to the Order to Show Cause

[Document No. 14], this Court is satisfied that Defendant has met its burden to show why the

unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment should not be granted. Accordingly, Defendant has

until Monday, July 13, 2009 to file his response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

[Document No. 11]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2009 S/ Sean F. Cox 

Sean F. Cox

United States District Court Judge

2:09-cv-10658-SFC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 07/07/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 105
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 09-10658

HON. SEAN F. COX

MOHAMED G. ZAHER a/k/a

MOHAMED J. ZAHER a/k/a

MOHAMED GAMIL ZAHER,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing order was served upon counsel of record via the 

Court’s ECF System and/or U. S. Mail on July 7, 2009.

s/Jennifer Hernandez 

Case Manager to

District Judge Sean F. Cox

2:09-cv-10658-SFC-RSW Doc # 15 Filed 07/07/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 106
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 China Discovery Acquisition Corp. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 (the “Report”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I
      Beatrice Hom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
      18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


By:
              /s/ Beatrice Hom
              
              
              Dated:
                November
                14, 2008Beatrice
                    Hom
                  Chief
                    Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer
                  (Principal
                    Accounting and Financial Officer)
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





Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Pacific Copper Corp. (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 31, 2012 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated:   March 21, 2012





/s/ David HackmanDavid HackmanChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:  March 21, 2012





/s/ Rakesh MalhotraRakesh MalhotraChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pacific Copper Corp. and will be retained by Pacific Copper Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WISEFAME INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14735

v. Hon. Julian Abele Cook, Jr.

CHARLES ALLEN, ET AL.,

Defendants.

 /

ORDER TO STRIKE DOCUMENTS AND REMOVE IMAGES FROM THE DOCKET

Upon review of the documents, the court has determined that the following documents #3

(Motion by Plaintiff to Compel), #4 (Motion by Plaintiff to Compel), #5 (Motion by Defendant

to Dismiss), #12 (Response by Plaintiff), #13 (Response by Defendant), and #15 (Response by

Plaintiff) are stricken from the record for the following reason: The documents were

transferred from the Northern District of Georgia and the pleadings were transferred

electronically by the Court but the documents should have been re-filed pursuant to Local

Rule 5.1 in the Eastern District of Michigan by counsel with the proper heading.

THEREFORE, the above listed documents are stricken from the record and THE

CLERK OF THE COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE IMAGES FROM THE

ECF SYSTEM: Documents #3, 4, 5, 12, 13 and 15. 

The Order of Reference filed on January 26, 2009 are hereby VACATED. Parties are

required to re-file the above listed motions pursuant to Local Rule 5.1 by April 13, 2009

and re-file the above listed responses by April 20, 2009. Once all of the documents have been

re-filed with the court, a new Order of Reference will be entered.

2:08-cv-14735-JAC-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 04/06/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 173
Dated: April 6, 2009

s/Julian Abele Cook, Jr. 

JULIAN ABELE COOK, JR.

United States District Court Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Order was served upon counsel of record via the Court's ECF System to their

respective email addresses or First Class U.S. mail to the non-ECF participants on April 6, 2009.

s/ Kay Doaks 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14735-JAC-MJH Doc # 18 Filed 04/06/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 174
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

HAPATIA BEAUMONT,

Appellant,

v.

ADINA LOGAN, M.D.,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00020-CV

Appeal from the

348th District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 348-273155-14)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and 

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. We further order costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring 

same, and this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MCCRAY,

 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:08-CV-15166 

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

v.

CINDI CURTIN,

Respondent.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION [dkt. #18]

On December 21, 2011, the court issued an order denying Petitioner's motion to

continue stay. Petitioner has now filed a motion for reconsideration. For the reasons

stated below, the court will deny the motion for reconsideration.

Local Rule 7.1(h) allows a party to file a motion for reconsideration. However, a

motion for reconsideration which presents the same issues already ruled upon by the court,

either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted. Ford Motor Co. v.

Greatdomains.com, Inc., 177 F. Supp. 2d 628, 632 (E.D. Mich. 2001). The movant must

not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the court and the parties have been

misled but also show that a different disposition of the case must result from a correction

thereof. A palpable defect is a defect that is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or

plain. Witzke v. Hiller, 972 F. Supp. 426, 427 (E.D. Mich. 1997).

In the present case, the arguments raised by Petitioner in his motion for

reconsideration were already raised, either explicitly or by reasonable implication, in

2:08-cv-15166-DPH-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 02/29/12 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 1058
2

Petitioner's motion to continue stay and denied by the Court in its order denying that

motion. Because Petitioner is merely presenting issues which were already ruled upon by

the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, when the court denied the motion,

the motion for reconsideration will be denied. See Hence v. Smith, 49 F. Supp. 2d 547, 553

(E.D. Mich. 1999).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's "Motion For Reconsideration" [Dkt.

# 18] is DENIED.

S/Denise Page Hood 

Denise Page Hood

United States District Judge

Dated: February 29, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Christopher McCray 

#376263,OAKS CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,1500 CABERFAE HIGHWAY,MANISTEE, MI

49660 and counsel of record on February 29, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-15166-DPH-RSW Doc # 20 Filed 02/29/12 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 1059
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 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, PE M BERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 1, 2014. Having reviewed

the record and the par ties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. A ppellant shall

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

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1128 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1128

 To authorize the award of a military service medal to members of the 
  Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of 
    participation in the testing of nuclear weapons or under other 
                             circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 21, 2009

 Mr. Roberts (for himself and Mr. Brownback) introduced the following 
   bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed 
                                Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the award of a military service medal to members of the 
  Armed Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of 
    participation in the testing of nuclear weapons or under other 
                             circumstances.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Atomic Veterans Service Medal Act''.

SEC. 2. ATOMIC VETERANS SERVICE MEDAL.

    (a) Service Medal Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall design 
and produce a military service medal, to be known as the ``Atomic 
Veterans Service Medal'', to honor retired and former members of the 
Armed Forces who are radiation-exposed veterans (as such term is 
defined in section 1112(c)(3) of title 38, United States Code).
    (b) Distribution of Medal.--
            (1) Issuance to retired and former members.--At the request 
        of a radiation-exposed veteran, the Secretary of Defense shall 
        issue the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the veteran.
            (2) Issuance to next-of-kin.--In the case of a radiation-
        exposed veteran who is deceased, the Secretary may provide for 
        issuance of the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the next-of-
        kin of the person.
            (3) Application.--The Secretary shall prepare and 
        disseminate as appropriate an application by which radiation-
        exposed veterans and their next-of-kin may apply to receive the 
        Atomic Veterans Service Medal.
                                 <all>
```
AO 120 (Rev. 08/10) 

TO: Mail Stop 8

Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

REPORT ON THE

FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN

ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR

TRADEMARK

In Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been

filed in the U.S. District Court on the following

G Trademarks or G Patents. ( G the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):

DOCKET NO. DATE FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:

DATE INCLUDED INCLUDED BY

G Amendment G Answer G Cross Bill G Other Pleading

PATENT OR

TRADEMARK NO.

DATE OF PATENT 

OR TRADEMARK HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK

 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:

DECISION/JUDGEMENT

CLERK (BY) DEPUTY CLERK DATE

Copy 1—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director

Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy

Eastern District of Michigan

✔

2/27/2009 Eastern District of Michigan

The Weather Underground, Inc. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., et al

2297683 12/7/1999 Weather Underground, Inc., The

2324272 2/29/2000 Weather Underground, Inc., The

2281088 9/28/1999 Weather Underground, Inc., The

2447954 5/1/2001 Weather Underground, Inc., The

3527030 11/4/2008 The Weather Underground, Inc.

77631410 12/11/2008 The Weather Underground, Inc.

JUDGMENT in favor of WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC. against DEFENDANTS. Judgment in the amount of $

3,500,000.00. JUDGMENT in favor of THE EPIC MEDIA GROUP, INC. against WEATHER UNDERGROUND, INC.,

on the claims in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. Signed by District Judge Marianne O. Battani.

David J. Weaver Peggy S. Miller 6/18/2012

2:09-cv-10756-MOB-VMM Doc # 301 Filed 06/18/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 7922
#### Jack ENLOE, Appellant, v. AMERICAN METAL FABRICATORS, INC., and Missouri Division of Employment Security, Respondents.

Nos. 69945, 69946.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 26, 1996.

James R. Dankenbring, Christine F. Hart, Dankenbring, Greiman, Osterholt & Hoffman, P.C., St. Louis, for Appellant.

Larry R. Ruhmann, Division of Employment Security, St. Louis, for Respondents.

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

*ORDER*

PER curiam:.

Claimant appeals the decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) regarding his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Commission adopted the findings of the appeals referee, who affirmed the decisions of the deputy of the Division of Employment Security following a hearing. In ease number 95-20698, the deputy determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits. In case number 95-20701, the deputy concluded that claimant had forfeited his benefit rights and any benefits payable for sixteen weeks for failure to report facts material to his claim. The two cases have been consolidated for appeal. We affirm. The decisions of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit 

No. 21-30142 

Summary Calendar 

NaKisha Jackson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Kristy Wilson, 

Defendant—Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 5:20-CV-1626 

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

NaKisha Jackson appeals the district court’s dismissal of her 

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). She 

contends that a default judgment should have been entered against the 

*

 Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4. 

United States Court of Appeals 

Fifth Circuit 

FILED 

July 5, 2022 

Lyle W. Cayce 

Clerk 

Case: 21-30142 Document: 00516381810 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
No. 21-30142 

2 

defendant, Kristy Wilson, because Wilson was properly served and failed to 

file an answer within the time provided under Rule 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 

There is no entitlement to a default judgment as a matter of right. 

Lewis v. Lynn, 236 F.3d 766, 767 (5th Cir. 2001). Even if we assume that 

Jackson satisfied the service requirements in this case, there was no abuse of 

discretion on the issue of a default judgment given the district court’s 

determination that Jackson’s factual allegations, even if found true, failed to 

state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See id. at 767-68. While 

Jackson’s appellate brief recounts the facts underlying her claims, she does 

not brief any argument challenging the district court’s legal conclusion that 

she failed to state a claim of malicious prosecution because one of the 

elements of such a claim under Louisiana law is a termination of the disputed 

legal proceeding in the plaintiff’s favor. She likewise fails to brief any 

argument challenging the district court’s determination that Louisiana law 

disallows claims of defamation or perjury based on a witness’s testimony in a 

judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Thus, Jackson has failed to show that 

those determinations were erroneous. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 

224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that even pro se litigants must brief 

arguments in order to maintain them). 

To the extent that Jackson raises a challenge regarding disqualification 

of a judge under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), she has not shown that there was an 

abuse of discretion on the issue. See United States v. Mizell, 88 F.3d 288, 299-

300 (5th Cir. 1996). Nor has she demonstrated any error in the procedure 

employed in the district court. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th 

Cir. 1998). 

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and Jackson’s motion 

to expedite the appeal is DENIED. 

Case: 21-30142 Document: 00516381810 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/05/2022
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CHARLES BLUNT, 

 Petitioner, Case Number: 08-14808 

 Honorable Mark A. Goldsmith 

v. 

MARY BERGHUIS, 

 Respondent. 

 / 

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR MANDAMUS (Dkt. 50) 

AND MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY (Dkt. 53)

 Petitioner Charles Blunt has filed a motion for mandamus and a motion for certificate of 

appealability. The Court denies both motions as moot. 

 Petitioner’s mandamus motion, although filed in this Court, is clearly directed to the Sixth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, Petitioner filed a motion for mandamus in the Court of Appeals 

shortly after he filed the instant motion. Both motions sought a ruling on a motion for relief from 

judgment then pending in this Court. This Court ruled on the motion for relief from judgment in 

April 2019, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition as moot. See In 

re: Charles Blunt, No. 19-1279 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2020). The Court will also deny the mandamus 

motion as moot. 

 Also before the Court is Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability (COA). He 

seeks a certificate of appealability from the Court’s April 2019 order denying motion for relief 

from judgment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner’s motion for certificate of 
2 

appealability on the same claims raised in the pending motion. Because the Sixth Circuit already 

has held that Petitioner’s claims are meritless, the motion will be denied as moot. 

 Accordingly, the Court denies Petitioner’s motion for mandamus (Dkt. 50) and motion for 

certificate of appealability (Dkt. 53). 

 SO ORDERED 

Dated: March 6, 2020 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

 Detroit, Michigan MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 United States District Judge 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any 

unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail 

addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on March 6, 2020. 

 s/Karri Sandusky 

 Case Manager
uawr

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 14-14-00534-CR

STYLE: Jacov Nixon vThe State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: August 18. 2015 Publish: No

OFFENSE: Aggravated Sexual Assault

COUNTY: Montgomery

TRIAL COURT: 9th District Court

TC CASE #: 12-05-05609 CR

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

STYLE: Jacov Nixon v The State of 1

CCA#

rexas

Petition

CAIS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

i*aj-/r

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN C

DATE: ll/jLS/20ir

JUDGE: rA ULUJU*-

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

FOR REHEAR

JUDGE:

ING IN CCA IS:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE

TO THE 188TH DISTRIC T COURT OF GREGG COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 18th day of September, A.D. 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Anthony Fernando Strange, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee No. 06

- 13

- 00178

- CR

Trial Court No. 41833

- A

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court
below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. We note that the appellant, Anthony Fernando Strange, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of app eal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our sa id Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 30th day of April , A.D. 2015

.

DEBRA K. AUTREY , C lerk