alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted and Abatement Order filed June 10 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 16

- 00278

- CR

____________ EX PARTE MARY FRANC ES WHITE

On Appeal from the 149th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 75377

- 1



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant timely appealed from the denial of her application for writ of habeas
corpus. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.072 § 8. On April 25, 2016, the trial court clerk filed the clerk’s record, which contain a certification of appellant’s right to appeal signed by appellant and her lawyer but not by the trial court . See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 34.5(a)(12). On April 27, 2016, this court notified the trial court of the defect and requested the trial court to review the clerk’s record, correct the certification of the defendant’s right of appeal, request the district clerk to prepare and certify a supplemental clerk’s record containing the correcte d certification, and file the supplemental clerk’s record with this court within 30 days

. See Tex. R. App.2

P. 37.1; Cortez v. State , 420 S.W.3d 803, 806 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (when a certification is defective, appellate clerk should notify trial clerk of defect and direct him to file a corrected certification). The district clerk filed a supplemental clerk’s record on May 25, 2016. However, that supplemental record does not contain the requested corrected
certification. Appellant filed a motion to abate this appeal and order the trial court to prepare and file a corrected certification. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.1 (“If a proper . . . certification of a criminal defendant’s right to appeal is not filed in the trial court within 30 days of the date of the [app ellate] clerk’s notice, the [appellate] clerk must refer the matter to the appellate court, which will make an appropriate order under this rule or Rule 34.5(c)(2).”). The motion is GRANTED

. Accordingly, w e abate the appeal and order the trial court to pr epare and file

a corrected certification of appellant’s right to appeal with the district clerk

. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2), 37.1, 44.4; Cortez , 420 S.W.3d at 806

– 07. We order the district clerk to prepare, certify, and file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the corrected certification by July 11 , 2016

. PER CURIAM
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A14A2278. TYLER D. ALLEN v. JEFFREY J. ALLEN.

The appeal in this case was docketed on August 11, 2014. Appellant’s brief

and enumeration of errors were due on September 1, 2014. On September 2, 2014,

this Court granted Appellant an extension until October 1, 2014 to file his brief and

enumeration of errors. On October 7, 2014, this Court granted Appellant another

extension until October 20, 2014. On October 8, 2014, thisCourt granted Appellant’s

Motion To Supplement The Record and ordered the Clerk of the Superior Court of

Fulton County to provide the supplemental record by October 18, 2014. On October

29, the Clerk of this Court was advised by a representative of the Superior Court of

Fulton County that Appellant refused to pay for the supplemental record as required.

As of the date of this Order, Appellant has not filed his brief and enumeration

of errors. Accordingly, this appeal is hereby dismissed as abandoned. See Court of

Appeals Rule 23 (a); Reese v. State, 216 Ga. App. 773 (456 SE2d 271) (1995).

Appellant’s Motion To Request Oral Argument, Appellant’s Second Motion

To Supplement The Appellate Record, and Appellant’s(third) Motion For Extension

Of Time To File The Initial Brief And Enumeration Of Errors are DENIED AS

MOOT.

January 08, 2015
Appellee’s Second Motion To Dismiss Appeal And Response To Appellant’s

Third Motion For Extension is DENIED AS MOOT.

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.

01/08/2015
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases   Special Emphasis Panel; Cooperative Research Partnerships for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases (U01).                     

*Date:*                         October 1, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         11 a.m. to 4 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817,  (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Brenda Lange-Gustafson, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, NIAID, DEA,  Scientific Review Program,  Room 3122,  6700-B Rockledge Drive, MSC-7616,  Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, (301) 451-3684,                         *bgustafson@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious  Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-20837 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-11-1999
<CASH>                                            1032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    31350
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      50077
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 84147
<PP&E>                                          102319
<DEPRECIATION>                                   62761
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  131299
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            25424
<BONDS>                                          39502
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5502
<OTHER-SE>                                       54473
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    131299
<SALES>                                         124515
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                124515
<CGS>                                           100152
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   117772
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   350
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5561
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1964
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3597
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3597
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.25


</TABLE>
Case 1:05-cv-00185-PB Document 16 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1
#### The State, ex rel. Podley, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio.*

(No. 24439

Decided February 14, 1934.)

*Mr. I. H. Ruth,*for relator.

*Mr. John W. Bricker,*attorney general, and *Mr. B. B. Zurmehly,*for respondent.

*

 Reporter’s Note: For final disposition of this case, see 128 Ohio St., 272.’

This cause came on to be heard upon the petition of the relator and demurrer of respondent, and was argued by counsel. On consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be, and the same hereby is, sustained for the reason that the writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ which is not available where there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law *(State, ex rel. Bassichis,*v. *Zangerle, County Aud., 126*Ohio St., 118), and that Section 1465-90, General Code, which is now in force and provides for a rehearing, does not apply to appeal from a proceeding which was pending when that statute was amended, such appeal being governed by the *584statute in effect at the time the relator’s original claim was filed, which afforded relator an adequate remedy at law by filing an appeal in the common pleas court within thirty days after a rehearing was refused. *(Industrial Commission*v. *Vail,*110 Ohio St., 304.)

Leave is hereby given to the relator to plead further within thirty days, and if not filed within that time it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of mandamus prayed for be, and the same hereby is, denied.

*Decree*accordingly.

Weygandt, O. J., Allen, Stephenson, Jones, Matthias, Beyes and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

In re: Jonathan Scott Baker and Shannon
Compton d/b/a American Outdoor
Transportation

No. 06

- 13

- 00118

- CV Original Mandamus Proceeding

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Carter and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relators ’ petition for writ of

mandamus should be granted. We direct the trial court to set aside its order granting a new trial,

to set aside the order of nonsuit, and to enter judgment for Relators on the jury’s verdict

.

RENDERED JANUARY 7, 2014

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's financial statements for the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         576,029
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  220,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,000
<INVENTORY>                                     76,376
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,018,850
<PP&E>                                      15,742,876
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,469,575)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,296,866
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,015
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,071,610
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,296,866
<SALES>                                      1,366,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,406,261
<CGS>                                          756,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,405,725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,677
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,141)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,148
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (13,289)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (13,289)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURIT .) )

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

ARNINDER SINGH

a/k/a

Kuldip Singh

CR. NO. 05-115-01- M

ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC

COMMUNICATION SERVICE AND REMOTE

COMPUTING SERVICE RECORDS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C . § 2703(d)

This matter having come before the Court pursuant to an application under Title 18,

United States Code, Section 2703(d) by Assistant United States Attorney Mark Zuckerman,

an attorney for the Government, requesting an order under Title 18, United States Code,

Section 2703(d) directing Yahoo!, Inc ., to provide certain electronic communication service

and remote computing service records; the Court finds that the applicant has certified that the

information sought is relevant and material to a legitimate law enforcement inquiry, that is, to

locate a fugitive from justice who is wanted in connection with possible violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 3146 ( a)(1) .

IT APPEARING that the information sought is relevant and material to a legitimate

law enforcement inquiry, and that disclosure to any person of this investigation or this

application and order entered in connection therewith would seriously jeopardize the

investigation;

IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2703(d) that

Case 1:05-cr-00115-PB Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 Page 1 of 3
Yahoo!, Inc . will, forthwith, furnish agents of the United States Marshals Service with the

following for the time period June 1, 2005, until the date of service of this Order:

A. Transactional and subscription records pertaining to Rupinder Hayre, or

rupinderhayre(Wvahoo .com. , including:

1 . Connection time and date;

2. Disconnect time and date ;

3 . Method of connection (e ., telnet, ftp, http);

4. Data transfer volume (e.g., bytes);

5. The subscriber account associated with the connection.

B. Subscriber information including :

1 . The subscriber's name ;

2. The subscriber's address;

3 . The subscriber's telephone number;

4. The subscriber's e-mail address;

5 . Any other information pertaining to the identity of the subscriber,

including, but not limited to, date of birth, social security number,

driver's license, billing information (including type and number of

credit cards or bank accounts).

6. Any other record or information pertaining to the subscriber account,

including length of account activation, type of service, special

requested services, records of contacts between the subscriber an d

-2-

Case 1:05-cr-00115-PB Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 Page 2 of 3
Yahoo!, Inc.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this order and the application be sealed until

otherwise ordered by the Court.

October 28 , 2005 /s/ S teven J . McAuliffe

Date Steven J. McAuliffe

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cr-00115-PB Document 5 Filed 10/28/05 Page 3 of 3
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh 128751 Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 128751 COA: 253751 Wayne CC: 03-008585-02 GILBERTO JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 29, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1024 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2005

Clerk
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arnold Romer, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The evidence demonstrated that the victim suffered a fractured skull over her left eye, as well as a laceration requiring eight stitches and leaving a 1 Vi-inch permanent scar. The victim’s face remained swollen on the left side at the time of trial and she continued to suffer from headaches as a result of the injury. The victim required hospitalization for lVi days following the attack. That evidence was sufficient to establish that the victim suffered serious physical injury *(cf., People v Williams,*96 AD2d 740, 741). Moreover, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the injuries were inflicted with a dangerous instrument, a 13-pound iron weight. Upon our review of the record, we find that the convictions are not against the weight of the evidence *(see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490). We decline to modify the sentence in the interest of justice. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—assault, second degree.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Lawton, Davis and Lowery, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

HERDER SPRING HUNTING CLUB, Respondent

v.

HARRY KELLER AND ANNA KELLER, HIS WIFE; J. ORVIS KELLER; ELLIS O. KELLER; HENRY HARRY KELLER; WILLIAM H. KELLER; MARY EGOLF; JOHN KELLER; HARRY KELLER; ANNA BULLOCK; ALLEN EGOLF; MARTIN EGOLF; MARY LYNN COX; ROBERT EGOLF; NATHAN EGOLF; ROBERT S. KELLER; BETTY BUNNELL; ANN K. BUTLER; MARGUERITE TOSE; HENRY PARKER KELLER; PENNY ARCHIBALD; HEIDI SUE HUTCHISON; REBECCA SMITH; ALEXANDRA NILES CALABRESE; CORRINE GRAHAM FISHERMAN; JENNIFER LAYTON MANRIQUE; DAVID KELLER; STEPHEN RICHARD KELLER; MICHAEL EGOLF, THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, AND ASSIGNS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER PERSON, PARTY OR ENTITY,
Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 556 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW, this 27th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal
is GRANTED . The issues are: M.D. Appeal Dkt. 5 2015 FILED 1/27/2015 Supreme Court Middle District[556 MAL 2014] - 2

(1) By failing to strictly construe [72 P.S. § 5020-409] and by ignoring and/or misconstruing this Court’s prior holdings, did the Superior Court err in ruling that a tax sale that occurred thirty-six years after the duly recorded severance of the subsurface oil and gas estate extinguished [p]etitioners’ interests where the tax deed and related documents described the assessed property as being that held by the then[-]unseated surface estate owner and when it is undisputed that there was no prior production or other basis upon which a valid assessment could be made of the reserved oil and natural gas interests? (2) Did the Superior Court deny the [p]etitioners’ due process rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions when it held that the 1935 tax sale divested [p]etitioners of their properly reserved oil and natural gas interests? (3) Did the Superior Court overlook controlling authority which provides that a grantee is bound by prior exceptions and reservations cited in its deed? (4) Did the Superior Court exceed the scope of its appellate authority by making a factual finding that the Kellers never notified the Centre County Commissioners of their severed oil and gas estate when the trial court found that there was no evidence one way or another as to whether such notice was provided?
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and
represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of
August 22, 2018, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2018-4 and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the
Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the
Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.By:

/s/ Sandra M. BroderickName:

Sandra M. BroderickTitle:

EVP Head of OperationsDate:

March 29, 2019By:

/s/ Andrew KangName:

Andrew KangTitle:

TreasurerDate:

March 29, 2019
#### TEACHY v. CITY OF WAUCHULA et al.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Aug. 3, 1936.

*641A. Yancy Teachy, of Wauchula, for appellant.

W. W. Whitehurst, of Wauchula, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is from a decree dismissing a bill of complaint seeking to enjoin the issue by the city of Wauchula, Fla., of $19,000 of “Waterworks Revenue Certificates” for the purpose of making additions and improvements to an existing waterworks system of the city, without the approval of the freeholder electors of the city as is required by section 6, article 9 of the Constitution of Florida, as amended in 1930. The revenue certificates are to be paid solely from the revenue derived from the operation of the said waterworks system and not otherwise.

The decree should be affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. v. City of Miami, 113 Fla. 280, 152 So. 6; State v. City of Daytona Beach, 118 Fla. 29, 158 So. 300; Boykin v. Town of River Junction (Fla.) 169 So. 492, filed July 17, 1936; Williams v. Town of Dunnellon (Fla.) 169 So. 631, and Bradley v. City of Homestead (Fla.) 169 So. 639, decided at this term.

Affirmed.

WHITFIELD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, BUFORD, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

ELLIS, P. J.,

concurs upon the principle announced in his specially concurring opinion in the case of State ex rel. City of Vero Beach v. MacConnell (Fla.) 169 So. 628, this day filed.