alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Pamela J. Hazelwood v. Keith L. Hazelwood

Appellate case number: 01-17-00147-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-49239

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

In May 2017, appellant filed a motion to supplement the clerk’s record, listing a number 

of items she wanted included in the record. This motion was granted on June 1, and the Harris 

County District Clerk was ordered to supplement the record with six documents. The 

supplemental clerk’s record was filed and included all but one document, which the clerk noted 

was not located. 

Appellant subsequently filed additional amended motions to supplement the clerk’s 

record, seeking to obtain a supplemental clerk’s record with thirteen additional documents. Two 

of the documents sought in the most recent motions were included in the supplemental clerk’s 

record. 

“If a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk’s record . . . any party may by letter 

direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement 

containing the omitted item.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1). An order from this court is unnecessary

to supplement the record.

Accordingly we DENY appellant’s second and third amended motions to supplement the 

clerk’s record. Any further requests for supplementation of the clerk’s record should be made 

directly to the trial court clerk, without the necessity of obtaining authorization from this court.

TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(c)(1). 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 14, 2017
Case 2:15-mj-01846-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/18/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01846-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/18/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01846-JFM Document 3 Filed 11/18/15 Page 3 of 3
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Developing New Standards of Drone Operations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"QL9376Pz8u\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/developing-new-standards-of-drone-operations\/\">Developing New Standards of Drone Operations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/developing-new-standards-of-drone-operations\/embed\/#?secret=QL9376Pz8u\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Developing New Standards of Drone Operations” — NASA\" data-secret=\"QL9376Pz8u\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/ed14-0205-21.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Gabriel Guadalupe Villasenor-Perez, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-15-50181-PHX-DLR

ORDER OF DETENTION

Defendant appeared before this Court on a Petition for Revocation of Supervised

Release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The Court considered the

Petition and file in determining whether defendant should be released on conditions set by

the Court.

The Court finds that defendant has failed to carry his burden of establishing that he

does not pose a serious flight risk or danger to any other person or to the community pursuant

to Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The Court concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a serious

flight risk and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably

assure his appearance at future proceedings.

The Court also concludes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant is a

danger and that there is no condition or combination of conditions that will reasonably assure

the safety of the community.

Case 2:15-cr-50181-DLR Document 9 Filed 12/29/16 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant be detained pending further

proceedings.

DATED this 29th day of December, 2016

Case 2:15-cr-50181-DLR Document 9 Filed 12/29/16 Page 2 of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alberto Arellano Valencia,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Brandon Maxwell, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-15-00499-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

On September 9, 2019, the Court dismissed this action with prejudice, 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter JUDGMENT for 

Defendants and against Plaintiff, nunc pro tunc. 

Dated this 18th day of December, 2019.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Global Callisto in Color","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"IDIZxaPUXh\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/global-callisto-color\/\">Global Callisto in Color<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-detail\/global-callisto-color\/embed\/#?secret=IDIZxaPUXh\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Global Callisto in Color” — NASA\" data-secret=\"IDIZxaPUXh\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/110204main_image_feature_279_ajhfull.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":450}
Case 2:15-mj-01892-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01892-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/04/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-mj-01892-JFM Document 4 Filed 12/04/15 Page 3 of 3
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 Defense

###### General Services Administration

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - 48 CFR Parts 2 and 4
          - [FAC 2005-77; FAR Case 2012-023; Correction; Docket 2012-0023, Sequence 1]
          - RIN 9000-AM60

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

# ACTION:

Final rule; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing a correction to FAR Case 2012-023; Uniform Procurement Identification (Item III), which was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         at 79 FR 61739, October 14, 2014.                    

# DATES:

*Effective:*                         November 13, 2014.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Edward Loeb, Procurement Analyst, at 202-501-0650, for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat at 202-501-4755. Please cite FAC 2005-77; FAR Case 2012-023; Correction.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Correction

                    In rule FR Doc. 2014-24240 published in the                     **Federal Register**                     at 79 FR 61739, October 14, 2014, make the following correction:                

On page 61741, in the first column, second line, correct “4.601” to read “4.1601”.

Authority:40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

Dated: October 21, 2014.

William Clark,

Acting Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

[FR Doc. 2014-25416 Filed 10-23-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
#### Obed Howard *v.*Willis Hisle.

Appeal and Error — Continuance—Diligence.

A party is not entitled to a continuance, on account of the absence of his witnesses, unless he has used such diligence as to place himself in a position to compel their attendance by attachment.

APPEAL FROM ESTILL CIRCUIT COURT.

June 9, 1868.

Opinion or the Court by

Judge Hardin:

We do not think, under all the circumstances, the court abused it’s discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance, and ruling the defendant to go to trial. If the facts disclosed in his affidavit, to have authorized a continuance in an ordinary case, where the party asking, it had been guilty of no previous laches, as it does not appear that the defendant, although ruled to prepare for trial in June, 1866, and again in June, 1867, had used such diligence as to place himself in a position to compel the attendance of his absent witnesses by attachment, the court properly refused to grant him further indulgence on the grounds disclosed by his affidavit.

Nor does it appear to us, that the judgment is erroneous, for the reason assigned that the verdict is not responsive to the issue. It is reasonably certain from the verdict that the jury meant to find for the plantiff the debt in the petition mentioned, subjected to the credits stated, and we think the court rightly so regarded the verdict. It does not appear that the court erred in instructing the jury, but if it did, the error is not available in this court, as it is not shown in the record that when the instructions were given, they were objected to, or any exception was then taken to the action of the court in giving them.

We do not feel authorized to disturb the judgment on the ground that the verdict is not sustained by the evidence. If, as suggested, the pleadings in the proceedings for a new trial disclosed a payment not appearing to have been allowed, it does not appear that the fact thus disclosed was placed before the jury, or that the *477court was asked to direct the credit to be allowed by any instruction based on the pleadings referred to.

Turner, *for appellant.*

Burnam, *for appellee.*

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Expedition 67 Mission Summary","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"okTff5LPHB\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/expedition-67-mission-summary\/\">Expedition 67 Mission Summary<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/expedition-67-mission-summary\/embed\/#?secret=okTff5LPHB\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 67 Mission Summary” — NASA\" data-secret=\"okTff5LPHB\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/08\/iss067-s-002_0.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Exhibit 23.1

To the Shareholders of Zi Corporation

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of Zi
Corporation as at December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the consolidated statement
of loss, shareholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audit.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of
the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards
require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether
the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged
to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as
a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the
circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the
effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit includes examining, on a test
basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial
statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and
significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall
financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a
reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, these consolidated financial statements
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company
as at December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the results of its operations and its cash
flows for the years then ended in accordance with United States generally
accepted accounting principles.

The financial statements referred to above have been prepared
assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note
2 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered recurring losses from
operations. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern. Management's plans in regards to these matters are
discussed in Note 1. The consolidated financial statements do not include any
adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

The financial statements as at December 31, 2006 and for the
year then ended were audited by other auditors who expressed an opinion without
reservation on those statements in their reports dated March 29, 2007 (except
for notes 13 and 20 which are as of June 15, 2007).

[signed] "Ernst & Young LLP"

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 
Calgary, Canada 
March 25, 2009

---
#### George H. Perrin and E. D. Rowland *v.*Philip Ammerman.

Descent and Distribution — Usurious Note in Hands of Legatee.

After a usurious note has passed into the hands of a legatee as his distribution of an estate, it can only be purged of an amount prorated according to his share of the estate.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

February 21, 1870.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters:

The casual remark of the judge in the presence of the jury, in reference to the testimony of Rowland, if an error at all, was not prejudicial to appellant. It did not follow that because the judge did not understand the witness that the jury should by the remark be made to conclude, o’r be induced thereby to believe, they did not understand him also.

We see but one error prejudicial to appellants, and for that the judgment must be reversed.

Prom the testimony of Rowland, it appears that at the death of James Ammerman he held a note on him, due 1st of January, 1858, for $416.76. . That note appellee got as part of his distributable share of his brother’s estate, all of which was for usurious interest, that interest was calculated at the rate of ten per cent, per annum on that note, from the time it was due, the 23rd of May, 1863, when to that note, with the interest thus calculated, was added a sum of money, which with interest on all that was due on the note, calculated at ten per cent per annum to the 23rd of March, 1864, made up the sum of $1788.50, for which the note sued on was executed. And interest paid on the last named sum at the rate of ten per cent, per annum until the 10th of March, 1867. If the jury believed the foregoing facts from the evidence, and that the whole of the note for $416 was for usurious interest, the court should have told them to deduct the one-sevénth thereof, and calculate interest on it at 10 per cent, per annum from the date of its maturity, and deduct it from the note as of *535date 23rd of May 1863, -which was substantially asked and was refused.

Trimble, *for appellants.*

*Ward, for appellee.*

It was not for this court to suggest the proper or best mode of calculation to be adopted to arrive at the most satisfactory conclusion as to the amount of usury, if any.

The business and duty of the court is to correct such errors as the record presents on final orders and judgments, and perhaps the less it wanders from the line of duty, the more authorative its opinions will be regarded.

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial and further proceedings consistent herewith.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Heather Deiss","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/heather-s-deissnasa-gov\/","title":"STS-104","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"inYJVx4gL6\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-104\/\">STS-104<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/sts-104\/embed\/#?secret=inYJVx4gL6\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-104” — NASA\" data-secret=\"inYJVx4gL6\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/STS104-S-002\/STS104-S-002~large.jpg?w=600&h=1536&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1536}
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DONALD J. BLANCHARD.

May 30, 1989.

Petition for certification denied.