alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 04-14-00494-CV

IN THE FOURTH CO URT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
United Parcel Service, Inc. and Roland Leal

, Appellants/Cross-Appellees,

v. Robert Scott Rankin, Individually, Rach elle Rankin, Individually and As Next Friend for Avery Rankin, a Minor, As Next Friend for Kara Rankin, a Minor and As Next Friend for Samuel Rankin, a Minor
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. On Appeal from the 224 th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Honorable Cathy Str yker, Presiding Judge Trial Court Cause No. 2011-CI-07922

MOTION FOR LE AVE TO FILE CROSS-APPE LLEES’ REPLY TO NEW ARGUMENT IN CROSS-APPELL ANTS’ REPLY BRIEF THAT RULE 167.4(a) IS INVALID

________________________ ______________________ ____________________ On February 19, 2014, Cross-Appella nts filed their Reply Brief, which

presents an argument at pages 6-7 that wa s not presented in their Cross-Appellants’

Brief, namely, that Rule 167.4(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure is invalid

and unenforceable because it allegedly conflicts with Chapter 42 of the Civil

Practices and Remedies Code, even thou gh the Texas Supreme Court issued Rule

167 to implement Chapter 42. Cross-Appe llees, United Parcel Service, Inc. and

Roland Leal, have not had an opportunity to respond to this argument that Rule

167.4(a) is invalid. Allowing them to file a Reply addressing this argument would

assist the Court in deciding it by provid ing important authority and argument. ACCEPTED 04-014-00494-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/26/2015 1:47:59 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK2 Cross-Appellees therefore re quest that this Court gran t leave to file “CrossAppellees’ Reply to New Argument in Cr oss-Appellants’ Reply Brief that Rule

167.4(a) Is Invalid” that has been electr onically filed along with this motion.

Respectfully submitted,

K ING & S PALDING LLP

By: /s/ H. Victor Thomas H. Victor Thomas Texas Bar No. 19851500 1100 Louisiana, Suite 4000 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-3200 Facsimile: (713) 751-3290

W. Randall Bassett Georgia Bar No. 41525 King & Spalding LLP 1180 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Telephone: (404) 572-4600 Facsimile: (404) 572-51003 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

As required by T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, I conferred with counsel for Appellees and Cross-Appellants Robert Scott Rankin, et. al. and they communicated that they are opposed to this motion.

Certified on March 26, 2015.

/s/ H. Victor Thomas H. Victor Thomas

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on March 26, 2015, I used the Court’s electronic case filing system to file this Motion and to serv e it on counsel for appellees as follows: Doug Perrin Mark Perrin The Perrin Law Firm 325 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 600 Dallas, TX 75201-3828

Peter D. Marketos Reese Gordon Marketos LLP 750 N. Saint Paul St., Suite 610 Dallas, Texas 75201

/s/ H. Victor Thomas H. Victor Thomas
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.15
 
 Reaffirmation Borrower Grantors Collateral
Agent
 W I T N E S S E T H:
 Agent Existing Credit Agreement
 Guarantee and Collateral Agreement
 Operating Bank Guaranty
 Credit Agreement Revolving Credit Facility Tranche B Term Loan
Facility Delayed-Draw Term Loan Facility Term Loan Facilities first second third




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



BALLY TOTAL FITNESS HOLDING CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Ronald G. EidellTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
 TH




---



##### 



By:
    
    /s/ Ronald G. EidellTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officerfor each of the Grantors listed above




---



##### 



ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREEDJPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Collateral AgentBy:
    
    /s/ Thomas H. KozierkTitle:
    
    Vice President




---



##### 



th
 TH
 By:
    
    /s/ Ronald G. EidellTitle:
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officerfor each of the Grantors listed above
```

                                                  UNITED STATES
                                        SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                                              WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

                                                    FORM 10-Q

[X]  Quarterly Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

         For the period ended September 30, 2000

                                                        or

[  ]  Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 [No Fee Required]

         For the transition period from   to  

Commission File Number 0-14477PS PARTNERS VI, LTD.
                                    (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

                         California               95-3950440
               (State or other jurisdiction of                                      (I.R.S. Employer
               incorporation or organization)                                    Identification Number)

                     701 Western Avenue
                    Glendale, California          91201-2394
          (Address of principal executive offices)                                     (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:  (818) 244-8080

Indicate by check mark  whether  the  registrant  (1) has filed all  reports  required to be filed by Section 13 or
15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter  period that the
registrant  was required to file such  reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing  requirements  for the past
90 days.

                                    Yes X No
```

----
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

  The following measures were read the second time and placed on the 
calendar:

       S. 761. A bill to improve the ability of the United States 
     to respond to the international terrorist threat.
       S. 790. A bill to provide for the modification or 
     elimination of Federal reporting requirements.
     

                          ____________________
```
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Defense Department establishes U.S. Space Force

              - Published  Dec. 20, 2019
              -                             By Department of Defense                                                    

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
Today the President signed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act and with it, directed the establishment of the U.S. Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces.“We are at the dawn of a new era for our Nation’s Armed Forces. The establishment of the U.S. Space Force is an historic event and a strategic imperative for our Nation. Space has become so important to our way of life, our economy, and our national security that we must be prepared as a Nation to protect it from hostile actions,” said Secretary of Defense, Mark T. Esper. “Our Military Services have created the world’s best space capabilities. Now is the time for the U.S. Space Force to lead our Nation in preparing for emerging threats in an evolving space environment. This new service will help ensure we are postured to deter aggression, defend our national interests and outpace potential adversaries.”“Space is critical to our nation's economic interests, national security, and way of life,” said Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley. “In military operations, space is not just a place from which we support combat operations in other domains, but a warfighting domain in and of itself. Our adversaries are building and deploying capabilities to threaten us, so we can no longer take space for granted. The U.S. Space Force is the necessary and essential step our Nation will take to defend our national interests in space today and into the future.”“The launch of the U.S. Space Force propels the nation into a new era,” said Secretary of the Air Force, Barbara M. Barrett. “An agile, lean and technologically-advanced force of talented professionals will now singularly focus on protecting our U.S. national interests and security in space.”“With the establishment of the Space Force we elevate the organize, train and equip function consistent with the criticality of the space domain,” said Gen. Jay Raymond, Chief of Space Operations and Commander, U.S. Space Command. “The U.S. Space Force will deliver the capabilities U.S. Space Command needs to control and exploit space for national advantage.”

LRUSAFAFAir Forcespace forceSpace CommandNew BranchSigningJoint Base AndrewsDepartment of DefensespaceSecretary of the Air Force Barbara M. BarrettU.S. Space ForceNational Defense Authorization ActS.1790National Defense StrategyNDAA
<PAGE>
				       BOSTON TECHNOLOGY, INC.
				      100 Quannapowitt Parkway
					Wakefield, MA  01880


June 12, 1997                           VIA EDGAR


Securities and Exchange Commission
Division of Corporation Finance
450 5th Street, N.W.
Judiciary Plaza
Washington, D.C.  20549

Re:  Boston Technology, Inc.
     Commission File No. 0-17384
     Form 10-Q
     

	Sir/Madam:

Pursuant to the Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), enclosed for filing in EDGAR electronic 
format is a copy of the Form 10-Q and required Exhibits for the three months
ended April 30, 1997.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed material, please 
contact the undersigned.

					Very truly yours,

					/s/ Carol B. Langer
					------------------------
					Carol B. Langer, Secretary


<PAGE>
<PAGE>
NO. 07-06-0404-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	MAY 16, 2007

	______________________________

	DANIEL DOMINIQUE JAQUEZ, 

									Appellant

	v.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

									Appellee

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

	NO. 53,032-D; HON. DON EMERSON, PRESIDING

	_______________________________

	Memorandum Opinion

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, CJ., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

	Daniel Dominique Jaquez appeals his conviction for burglary of a habitation.  In one issue, he contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to amend the indictment on the day of trial.  The amendment consisted of correcting the date of a prior conviction pled for enhancement purposes.  We affirm the judgment. 

	As previously mentioned, the State sought to amend the indictment to correct the date of the prior conviction pled in the enhancement paragraph.  Notice of its intent to do so was sent to appellant’s trial counsel, and the latter admitted to having received it ten days before trial.  Nonetheless, appellant objected when effort was made, on the day of trial, to formally amend the charging instrument.  Before us, he asserts that the effort failed to comply with art. 28.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure for the provision does not allow amendment on the day of trial.  We overrule the issue.

	Authority also holds that while prior convictions used for enhancement purposes must be pled in some form, they need not be pled in the indictment.  Villescas v. State, 189 S.W.3d 290, 292-93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Brooks v. State, 957 S.W.2d 30, 34 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Johnson v. State, 214 S.W.2d 157, 158 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 2007, no pet.).  So too are we told not only that the deletion of surplusage from an indictment falls outside the requirements of art. 28.10 but also that surplusage encompasses language unessential to the validity of the indictment.  Johnson v. State, 214 S.W.3d at 158.  Since enhancement paragraphs need not be pled in the indictment, it logically follows that they are unessential to the validity of the instrument and comparable to surplusage for purposes of art. 28.10.  Id.  As a result, we conclude that modifying the date in the enhancement paragraph here does not implicate art. 28.10 and, therefore, the trial court did not violate the terms of that provision.  Id.

	Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

							Brian Quinn 

						          Chief Justice 	

Do not publish.
EXHIBIT 31.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d)





I, Steven C. McNeal, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Entergy Louisiana Investment Recovery Funding I, L.L.C. (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);





2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;





4.  I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer, and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and





5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.





In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as Indenture Trustee.





Date:  March 22, 2018





By:  /s/ Steven C. McNeal


Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:  Vice President and Treasurer


of Entergy Louisiana, LLC as Servicer


(Senior officer in charge of the servicing function)
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ROGER FINCHER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D20-2180

[March 11, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 562010CF000085A.

Roger Fincher, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, C.J., CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN NORRIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 215 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

CALVIN NORRIS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 216 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of December, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Brian E. Schaaf, certify that:

 

1.                                    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2011-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.                                    Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.                                    I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.                                    All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon, as indenture trustee of the issuing entity, and U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as owner trustee of the issuing entity.

 

Dated March 21, 2014

 

 
|   | /s/   Brian E. Schaaf                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
|   | Brian   E. Schaaf                                  |
|   | Vice   President and Assistant Treasurer           |
|   | Ford   Motor Credit Company LLC, as Servicer       |
|   | (senior   officer in charge of servicing function) |

 

----
[No. 18498-6-III.

Division Three.

April 6, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ray Jay Franetich, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 93-1-00299-9, Kathleen M. O’Connor, J., entered April 30, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. 3008 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To extend temporarily the extended period of protection for members of uniformed 

services relating to mortgages, mortgage foreclosure, and eviction, and for other 

purposes. 

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 ‘‘Foreclosure Relief and Extension 

for Servicemembers Act of 2014’’. 

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF EXTENDED PERIOD OF PROTECTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED SERVICES RELATING 

TO MORTGAGES, MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE, AND EVICTION. 

Section 710(d) of the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring 

for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 (Public Law 112–154; 126 

Stat. 1208) is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘December 31, 2014’’ and 

inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’; and 

(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘January 1, 2015’’ and 

inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[No. 1561.]

#### Wallace Thompson *v.*The State.

1. Informations—Pleading.—An information is the official act of the State’s attorney, and not the act of the person upon whose affidavit it is made; and it must clearly appear on the face of the information that the charge against the accused is preferred by the attorney. See an information *held*insufficient to charge the offense of aggravated assault.

3. Same—Constitutional Law.—Section 13 of Article 5 of the Constitution requires that all prosecutions shall conclude with the words: “Against the peace and dignity of the State.” The omission of the word “the” before the word “ State ” is fatal to the sufficiency of an indictment or information.

Appeal from the County Court of Delta. Tried below before the Hon. D. H. Lane, County Judge.

The information in this case reads as follows:

“In the name and by the authority of the State of Texas: And now comes J. A. Templeton, county attorney in and for the county of Delta, and State of Texas, duly elected and qualified, •now presents here in the County Court of said county, this information, and' files with it the affidavit of one W. T. McKinney, on which it is based, and shows to the c.ourt that heretofore, on to-wit, the fifth day of October, A. D. 1883, in Delta county, State of Texas, one R Thompson and one Wallace Thompson, acting together and with each other, did unlawfully make and commit an aggravated assault in and upon the person of W. T. McKinney, by then and there pointing at and toward the said W. T. McKinney, within shooting distance of him, a certain gun, which gun was then and there a deadly weapon, and was then and there had and held in the hands of the said R. Thompson, against the peace and dignity of State.

“J. A. Templeton,

“County Attorney, Delta County.”

The appellant, being alone upon trial, was convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of twenty-five dollars.

*E. B. Perkins,*for the appellant.

*J. H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

*40Opinion delivered November 7, 1883.

Willson, Judge.

We are of the opinion that the information is fatally defective in two respects.

1. It does not clearly show that the county attorney makes the charge against the defendant. It is in almost identically the same form as was the information in *Prophit*v. *The*State, 12 Texas Court of Appeals, 233, which was held to be insufficient.

2. It concludes, “against the peace and dignity of State,” omitting the word “the,” which should immediately precede the word “State.” Section 12, Article 5 of the Constitution requires that all *prosecutions*shall conclude “against the peace and dignity of the State,” and this requirement applies as well to an information as to an indictment. *(Cox*v. *The State,*8 Texas Ct. App., 254; *Haun*v. *The State,*13 Texas Ct. App., 383.)

In other respects we think the information sufficient. It alleges the necessary facts to constitute an aggravated assault. (Penal Code, Art., 489, sub. 3; Art. 496, sub. 8.)

Because of the two defects in the information above pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the prosecution dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*
#### THE STATE v. HARDING, Plaintiff in Error.

Division Two,

November 22, 1904.

Error to Buchanan Criminal Court. — No». *B. J. Casteel, .*Judge.

Affirmed.

FOX, J.

The same questions are presented upon the record in this cause as in the cases of State v. Rosenblatt, 185 Mo. 114, and State v. Blakely, reported at page 187 of this volume.

Adopting the conclusions reached in those cases, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

*Gantt, P. J.,*concurs; *Burgess, J.,*absent.