alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"Florida Students to Speak with First Cuban-American Astronaut on Space Station","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"idmtWvt09c\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/florida-students-to-speak-with-first-cuban-american-astronaut-on-space-station\/\">Florida Students to Speak with First Cuban-American Astronaut on Space Station<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/florida-students-to-speak-with-first-cuban-american-astronaut-on-space-station\/embed\/#?secret=idmtWvt09c\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Florida Students to Speak with First Cuban-American Astronaut on Space Station” — NASA\" data-secret=\"idmtWvt09c\" 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\/2018\/12\/downlink_media_advisory_picture_-_week_of_12-2.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6311

FILIBERTO FELICIANO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAPTAIN J. COX, Albemarle District Jail; OFFICER BROOKS, Albemarle 

District Jail; P.A. PETER WOGLOM, Albemarle District Jail,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-ct-03254-FL)

Submitted: July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Filiberto Feliciano, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, WOMBLE BOND 

DICKINSON (US) LLP, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Jay C. Salsman, HARRIS, 

CREECH, WARD & BLACKERBY, New Bern, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Filiberto Feliciano appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Feliciano v. 

Cox, No. 5:15-ct-03254-FL (E.D.N.C. filed Mar. 20 & entered Mar. 21, 2018). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Case 2:15-cr-01594-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01594-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cr-01594-GMS Document 3 Filed 11/17/15 Page 3 of 3
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff(s)

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant(s)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney,

whose name and address are:

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. 

You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 2 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2
AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date) .

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date) ; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) , who is

 designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because ; or

’ Other (specify):

.

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 2 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.2

Eastern Division

JAMES SMITH

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:20−cv−02350

Honorable Ronald A. Guzman

GREATBANC TRUST COMPANY, et al.

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Monday, May 11, 2020:

 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Defendants' unopposed

motion for extension of time to file a respond to the complaint from May 13, 2020 to June

1, 2020 [23] is granted. Mailed notice (is, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:20-cv-02350 Document #: 24 Filed: 05/11/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:95
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40748

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FILIBERTO RIVERA-ORTIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CR-91-ALL

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Filiberto Rivera-Ortiz (“Rivera”) appeals his sentence

imposed following his guilty plea to illegally re-entering the

United States after having been deported, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. The district court sentenced Rivera to 60

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, as

well as to 10 months in prison for the revocation of a prior

supervised-release term. 

For the first time on appeal, Rivera argues that his

sentence was unconstitutional because it was enhanced pursuant to

the mandatory Sentencing Guidelines regime rejected in United
No. 04-40748

-2-

States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). Plain error is the

appropriate standard of review. United States v. Malveaux,

___F.3d___, No. 03-41618, 2005 WL 1320362 (5th Cir. Apr. 11,

2005). Rivera has not established plain error with regard to his

Booker claim because he has not established that his sentence

affected his substantial rights. See United States v. Mares, 402

F.3d 511, 520-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar.

31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). The record does not indicate that the

district court “would have reached a significantly different

result” under a sentencing scheme in which the guidelines

were advisory only. Id. at 521-22; United States v. ValenzuelaQuevedo 407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Rivera also asserts that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530

U.S. 466 (2000) and its progeny, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is

unconstitutional because it permits a sentencing judge to

increase a sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on a

factor that need not be submitted to a jury for proof or admitted

by the defendant. Rivera concedes that this argument is

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224,

235 (1998), but he seeks to preserve the issue for possible

Supreme Court review. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“‘unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to

overrule it.’” United States v. Izaguirre-Flores, 405 F.3d 270,

277-78 (5th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 188

Urging the executive branch to take action regarding the acquisition by

Iran of C–802 cruise missiles.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 17, 1997

Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. SOLOMON, Mr. ROHRABACHER, Mr. SMITH of

New Jersey, Mr. COX of California, and Mr. MARKEY) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International

Relations

RESOLUTION

Urging the executive branch to take action regarding the

acquisition by Iran of C–802 cruise missiles.

Whereas the United States escort vessel U.S.S. Stark was

struck by a cruise missile in the Persian Gulf, causing

the death of 37 United States sailors;

Whereas the China National Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation is marketing the C–802 model cruise

missile for use against escort vessels such as the U.S.S.

Stark;

Whereas the China National Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation delivered 60 C–802 cruise missiles to

Iran for use by vessels of the Iranian Revolutionary

Guard Navy;
2

•HRES 188 IH

Whereas Iran is constructing sites and equipment to launch

C–802 cruise missiles which will provide its armed forces

with a weapon of greater range, reliability, accuracy, and

mobility than before;

Whereas 15,000 members of the United States Armed Forces

are stationed within the range of the C–802 cruise missiles acquired by Iran;

Whereas the Department of State believes that ‘‘[t]hese

cruise missiles pose new, direct threats to deployed United States forces’’;

Whereas the delivery of cruise missiles to Iran is a violation

of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (50

U.S.C. 1701 note); and

Whereas the executive branch has concluded at present that

the known types (of C–802 cruise missiles) are not of a

‘‘destabilizing number and type’’: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

2 (1) finds that the delivery of cruise missiles to

3 Iran is of a destabilizing number and type and,

4 therefore, is a violation of the Iran-Iraq Arms Non5 Proliferation Act of 1992 (50 U.S.C. 1701 note);

6 and

7 (2) urges the executive branch to enforce the

8 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 (50

9 U.S.C. 1701 note) with respect to the acquisition by

10 Iran of C–802 model cruise missiles.

Æ
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 

Michael Apelt, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondent.

No. CV-98-00882-PHX-ROS

EX PARTE ORDER 

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

 

IT IS ORDERED granting Petitioner’s motion for substitution of counsel. (Doc. 

387.) Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3599(A)(2), Emily Skinner is appointed as lead counsel 

and Amy Armstrong as co-counsel. Based on their skill and experience, the Court finds 

justification for reimbursement at the maximum permissible hourly rates for lead counsel 

and co-counsel under General Order 18-04, which is presently $188 and $168 per hour 

respectively. Any future increases to the maximum rates for lead and co-counsel adopted 

by the District of Arizona will be applied automatically.

 Dated this 27th day of August, 2018. 

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-00882-ROS Document 389 Filed 08/28/18 Page 1 of 1
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T J O SE M A RTI N LI M O N - RO BLES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 71175 A ge nc yN o. A 035- 825- 304 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 8, 2011 ** B efo re: F A R R IS , O ’ S C A N N L A IN an dB Y B E E , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J os e M art i n L i m on- R obl e s , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s r e m ova l or de r . W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252, an dw e g ran tth e p et i t i o n fo r rev i ew an drem an dfo r fu rth er p ro ceed i n g s. 

# FI LED MA R 28 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 71175 2 T he a ge nc yde t e rm i ne d tha tL i m on- R obl e s w a s r e m ovabl e unde rthe a ggr ava t e d f

e l onygr ound of

de port a t i on, 8 U . S . C . § 1227( a ) ( 2) ( A ) ( i i i ) , ba s e d on hi s 1987 c onvi c t i on f

orvi ol a t i ng A r i z onaR e vi s e d S t a tut e s §§ 13- 1405, 1401, 3 8 2 1 , 1 0 0 1 , 6 0 4 .0 1 , 7 0 2 , 8 0 1 an d8 1 2 . S ub s e qu e n t to th e a g e n c y ’s d e c is io n in th is c a s e , w e he l d i n L edezm a-G al i ci a v. H older , N os . 03- 73648, 04- 35048, 2010 W L 5 1 7 4 9 7 9 ( 9 th C ir . D e c . 2 2 , 2 0 1 0 ) , th a t 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii) d o e s n o t ap p ly t o c onvi c t i ons tha toc c urr e d pr i ort o N ove m be r18, 1988. W e the r e f or e gr antthe pet i t i on for r evi ew and rem and t o the agency i n l i gh tof L e dez m a - G a lic ia . I n l i ghtof

ourdi s pos i t i on, w e ne e d nota ddr e s s L i m on- R obl e s ’ r e m a i ni ng co n t en t i o n s. P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W G R A N T E D ; R E M A N D E D . B Y B E E , C ir c u it Ju d g e , c o n c u rr in g in th e ju d g e m e n t: I r e lu c tan tlyc o n c u rin th e ju d g m e n t. I c o n tin u e to b e lie v e th a t L e dez m aG a lic ia w a s w r o n g lyd e c id e d . See L edezm a-G al i ci a v. H older , ____F .3 d___( 9 th C i r. D ec . 22 , 20 10 ) ( B ybee , J. , di ss ent i ng ).
CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, KENNETH GALPIN, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Most Home Corp.;

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

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

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

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

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

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

|Date: June 11, 2004 | /s/  Kenneth GalpinKenneth Galpin
President and Chief Executive Officer
|------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
9771.

#### Garr *v.*The State.

Decided October 22, 1918.

Indictment for larceny of an automobile; from Fulton superior court—Judge HilL April 27, 1918.

*James & Bedgood,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, B. A. Stephens,*contra.

Broyles, P. J.

No special ground of the motion for a new trial shows reversible error, nor are any of the grounds of such a character as to require elaboration. The conviction of the accused was amply authorized by the evidence; and the court did-not err in refusing to grant a new trial..

Judgment. *affirmed.*

*Bloodioorth and Harwell, JJ., concur.*
H. Res. 187

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

July 17, 1997.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1853) to amend the Carl D. Perkins Vocational

and Applied Technology Education Act. The first reading of

the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(6)

of rule XI are waived. General debate shall be confined to the

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Education and the Workforce. After general

debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the

five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute

rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and the

Workforce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment
2

•HRES 187 EH

in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of

the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of

rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as

read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the

House with such amendments as may have been adopted.

Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on

any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to

the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a

substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except one motion to recommit

with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION



### November 7, 2008 Revision Cause number: 01

- 1 3

- 00 708

- CV

Style: Stage Stores, Inc.

v

. Jon Gunnerson

Date motion filed * : November 13 , 201 3

Type of motion: Motion to file agreed record

Party filing motion: Appellant

Document to be filed: Agreed record

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date:

Number of previous extensions granted: Current Due date:

Date Requested:

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due:

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant appellant additional motions to extend

time

 Denied

 Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________

Appellant’s motion to file agreed record is denied. Further, the Court strikes the record filed by the

parties on November 13, 2013. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34 does not allow the parties to file

their own agreed record directly with this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.2 (“By written stipulation filed

with the trial court clerk, the parties may agree on the contents of the appellate record.”). However, to the

extent the parties believe that relevant items were not included in the clerk’s record previously filed with

this Court, the parties “may by letter direct the trial court clerk to prepare, certify, and file in the

appellate court a supplement containing the omitted item[s].” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(c) (1) . Further, to the

extent that documents contained in the clerk’s record are illegible, these documents are considered

effectively destroyed and “the parties may, by written stipulation, deliver a copy of [the destroyed items] to

the trial court clerk for inclusion in the clerk’s record or a supplement.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 34.5(e).

Judge's signature: /s/ L a ura C. Higley



Panel consists of

____________________________________________

Date: November 26, 2013