alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered June 8, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01184-CV

PLAINSCAPITAL BANK, Appellant

V.

SALLY JOANN REAVES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-04118

ORDER

Before the Court is appellee’s June 7, 2018 unopposed motion for extension of time to 

file an amended brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to July 18, 2018.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 15



     November 11, 2003


     Koger Equity, Inc.
     225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 200
     Boca Raton, Florida  33432




     We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the
     American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited
     interim financial information of Koger Equity, Inc. and subsidiaries for
     the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2003 and 2002, as
     indicated in our report dated October 31, 2003; because we did not perform
     an audit, we expressed no opinion on such financial information.

     We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
     Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, is
     incorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 33-55179 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 33-54617 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-54621 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 33-54765 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-20975 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-23429 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-8, Registration Statement No. 333-37919 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-3, Registration Statement No. 333-33388 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-38712 of Koger
     Equity, Inc. on Form S-8.

     We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c)
     under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the
     Registration Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
     prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and
     11 of that Act.



     DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
     West Palm Beach, Florida
Exhibit 32

                          TEMPCO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Tempco, Inc. (the
"Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Stanley L. Schloz, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the
best of my knowledge, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/ Stanley L. Schloz
    ---------------------
    Stanley L. Schloz
    President,Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
    November 13, 2009
#### James Phelps *v.*Jas. N. Nesbitt.

Alteration of Instruments — Material Allegation — Interest Clause.

The changing of a note after execution and delivery, hy inserting in the body thereof the words “to hear interest from date,” is a material alteration.

Alteration of Instruments — Change to Conform to Agreement.

After a note has- been executed and delivered, one party can not without the consent of the other change the note to conform to the contract between them.

APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT.

December 30, 1872.

OpinioN by

Judge Lindsay:

The defense relied upon by appellee is that the note sued on was materially altered after its execution without his consent, and therefore that it was not his act and deed.

*182
      *Reid & Stone, for appellant.*

*Nesbitt, for appelle.e.*

The alleged alteration is that the words “to bear interest from date/’ were inserted in the face of the note.

It can not be doubted that the alteration, if made, was material, as it increased the liability of the persons to the extent of one year’s interest upon the amount of the note.

It is not necessary that we should review the testimony. The verdict is not palpably wrong, and ought not to be disturbed unless the jury were misinstructed as to the law of the case. Instructions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, asked for by appellant, were properly refused for the reason that it is assumed in each of them that Daugherty and appellant had the right after Nesbitt had signed the note to so alter it as to malee it conform to the contract between them.

This is not the law. Nesbitt is bound only to execute his own contract, and the note as executed by him is the best evidence as to what that contract was. If it was not in accordance with the agreement between appellant and Daugherty, the principal, the former had the option to refuse to advance the money upon it, but had not the right even with the principal’s consent, to change it, and thereby bind Nesbitt by .a contract to which he had never assented. Nor does this case come within the rule, that sureties are bound to the payee of a note, although it is delivered by the principal without obtaining the signatures of other parties as sureties whose signatures he agreed to procure. The defense in this case is that the note was complete when signed by Nesbitt. Nothing was to be done except to deliver it. Daugherty was the agent of Nesbitt for this and for no other purpose.

For the reasons indicated Instructions Nos. 8 and 9 were properly modified.

Instructions Nos. 10 and 11, given at the instance of appellee, substantially embody the law.

Judgment *affirmed.*
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

ABC Corporation I et al, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

THE PARTNERSHIPS And 

UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS 

IDENTIFIED ON SCHEDULE “A”, 

 Defendants.

 Case No.: 1:20-cv-04806 

 Judge Honorable Thomas M. Durkin 

 Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cole 

DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENTS’ 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

Defendant Gyroor-US (“Defendant” or “Gyroor-US”) and Third-Party Respondents 

Gyroor, Urbanmax, GaodeshangUS, Fengchi-US, Gyroshoes, Jiangyou-US 1, Shenzhen 

Yanjingmaoyi Co., Ltd., and HGSM (collectively, “Third-Party Respondents”) file this motion 

requesting leave to file under seal Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ damage report, with 

accompanying sales data, included as part of Defendant and Third-Party Respondents’ Motion for 

Damage. [Dkt.696]. 

Sealing this portion of the file is necessary because it contains Defendant and Third-Party 

Respondents’ confidential business information including sales data and cost of goods sold. On 

February 6, 2024, Defendant and Third-Party Respondents informed Plaintiffs Hangzhou Chic 

Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) and Unicorn Global, Inc.’s (“Unicorn”, collectively with 

“Chic”, “Plaintiffs”) counsel through email that they intend to file Defendant and Third-Party 

1

 Jiangyou-US is a former defendant but was dismissed from this case on June 21, 2022. [Dkt. 561]. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 698 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:17933
2

Respondents’ damage report and accompanying sales data under seal, and Plaintiffs do not oppose 

the data referenced in the email being filed under seal. 

Date: 2/9/2024 

 

/s/ Wei Wang

Wei Wang, Esq. 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

41 Madison Avenue, Ste 2529 

New York, NY 10010 

wei.wang@glacier.law 

332-777-7315 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

506 Second Ave., Ste 1516 

Seattle, WA 98104 

Na Zhang, Esq. 

queena.zhang@glacier.law 

206-397-8633 

GLACIER LAW LLP 

200 E. Randolph Dr., Ste. 5100 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Ruoting Men, Esq. 

ruoting.men@glacier.law

Tianyu Ju, Esq. 

iris.ju@glacier.law 

312-270-0413 

Attorneys for Defendant andThirdParty Respondents

 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 698 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:17934
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this February 9, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing 

file with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and service was perfected on all counsel 

of record and interested parties through this system, which will deliver a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing documents via CM/ECF. 

Date: 02/09/2024 /s/ Wei Wang 

Wei Wang, Esq. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04806 Document #: 698 Filed: 02/09/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:17935
#### *A.*J. Knowles, Adm'r, *v.*Z. Lears.

Arbitration and Award — Unanimity of Decision.

Where a cause Is submitted to arbitrators' and no umpire is selected, the arbitrators are substituted for a jury, and the same ■unanimity is necessary in making an award as is required of a jury in rendering a verdict.

APPEAL, prom: WARREN CIRCUIT COURT.

March 16, 1873.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

The matters in litigation in this action were submitted “to the arbitration of !P. Hines, William Cook and J. M. Donaldson.”

*563
      *Bates & Wright, Bush, for appellant.*

*D.ulaney, Hálsell, for appellee.*

This court is of opinion that it was necessary that all three of these gentlemen should concur in the award to make it binding on the parties.

Section 1, Chapter 3, Revised Statutes, authorizes the submission of controversies to one or more arbitrators, or to two and the umpire. Here, the submission was to arbitrators alone. There was no umpire named. We must presume, and the law seems to be based upon the idea, that where no umpire is selected, the parties substitute the arbitrators for a jury, and the same unanimity necessary to enable a jury to render a verdict is necessary to authorize arbitrators to make an award.

Section 3, Chapter 21, Revised Statutes, does not, in our opinion, apply to arbitration. The award in this case should have been set aside.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded .for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-18-00300-CV

TEXAS HEALTH CARE, P.L.L.C. AND 

TIMOTHY J. JONES, D.O., Appellants

V.

E.D., A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER 

PARENTS B.O. AND D.D. AS NEXT 

FRIENDS, Appellee

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 352nd District 

Court

of Tarrant County (352-293099-17)

March 5, 2020

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in the trial court’s judgment. We reverse the trial court’s order denying 

Texas Health Care, P.L.L.C. and Timothy J. Jones, D.O.’s motion to dismiss, and we 

render judgment dismissing with prejudice the health care liability claims of E.D., by 

and through her parents B.O. and D.D. We remand this case to the trial court to 

assess Texas Health’s and Dr. Jones’s reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.

It is further ordered that Appellee shall pay all of the costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
www.nist.gov/osac

OSAC Registry Approved Standards 

FY 2018

The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science Registry serves 

as a trusted repository of high-quality, science-based standards and guidelines that address 

discipline-specific forensic science needs. Documents posted on the OSAC Registry have 

been developed using a consensus-based process that allows participation and comment 

from all relevant stakeholders and have been assessed to be sound by forensic science 

practitioners, academic researchers, measurement scientists and statisticians. 

The following 12 documents were effective on the OSAC Registry at the end of fiscal year 

2018 (ending September 30, 2018):

Fire and Explosion Investigation

• NFPA 921:2017 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (effective November 1, 2017).

• NFPA 1033:2014 Standard for Professional Qualifications for Fire Investigator (effective December 22, 2016).

Materials (Trace)

• ASTM E3085-17 Standard Guide for Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy in Forensic Tape 

Examinations (effective September 11, 2018).

• ASTM E2937-18 Standard Guide for Using Infrared Spectroscopy in Forensic Paint Examinations (effective June 

26, 2018).

• ASTM E1610-18 Standard Guide for Forensic Paint Analysis and Comparison (effective June 26, 2018).

• ASTM E2927-16e1 Standard Test Method for Determination of Trace Elements in Soda-Lime Glass Samples Using 

Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for Forensic Comparisons (effective June 5, 2018).

• ASTM E2926-17 Standard Test Method for Forensic Comparison of Glass Using Micro X-ray Fluorescence (μ-XRF) 

Spectrometry (effective July 31, 2017).

Seized Drugs

• ASTM E2329-17 Standard Practice for Identification of Seized Drugs (effective August 7, 2018).

• ASTM E2548-11e1 Standard Guide for Sampling Seized Drugs for Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis (effective 

April 3, 2017).
 www.nist.gov/osac

2

Interdisciplinary

• ANSI/NIST ITL-1:2011 (Update 2013) Data Format for the Interchange of Fingerprint, Facial & Other Biometric 

Information (effective July 13, 2017).

• ISO/IEC 17020:2012 Conformity Assessment – Requirements for the Operation of Various Types of Bodies 

Performing Inspection (effective April 18, 2017).

• ISO/IEC 17025:2005 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories

(effective September 27, 2016).

Replacements/Revisions During FY 2018:

• ASTM E2329-14 (effective January 27, 2016 – July 20, 2018) was replaced by ASTM E2329-17 on July 

20, 2018. 

• NFPA 921:2014 (effective September 20, 2016 – November 1, 2017) was replaced by NFPA 921:2017 

on November 1, 2017.
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10456

Conference Calendar

__________________

KENNETH LEE COLEMAN, SR.,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL JONES, TDCJ Health Service Admin.;

HENRY NORRID, Dr.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:94CV00120

- - - - - - - - - -

August 23, 1995

Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Lee Coleman, Sr., contends that prison medical

personnel were deliberately indifferent to his serious needs

because he did not receive tennis shoes with built-in arch

supports. 

A prison official acts with deliberate indifference under

the Eighth Amendment "only if he knows that inmates face a

substantial risk of serious harm and [he] disregards that risk by

failing to take reasonable measures to abate it." Farmer v.

Brennan, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 1984 (1994); see Reeves v. Collins, 27
No.95-10456

-2-

F.3d 174, 176-77 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the Farmer standard in

the context of a denial-of-medical-care claim). Negligence,

neglect, and even medical malpractice do not state a claim under

§ 1983. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). 

Testimony at the evidentiary hearing conducted pursuant to

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1985), indicates

that Coleman was prescribed tennis shoes with arch supports by

Dr. Grabado following Coleman's testicular surgery. Eventually

the shoes wore out, at which time Dr. Norrid prescribed tennis

shoes and/or deck shoes. Dr. Revell testified at the Spears

hearing that Coleman accepted a pair of deck shoes on July 22,

1993. Dr. Revell also testified that Coleman was seen numerous

times and prescribed size 91⁄2, soft sole, canvas deck shoes. Dr.

Revell further testified that Coleman was seen a number of times

by Dr. Norrid regarding various complaints concerning the deck

shoes. Coleman testified at the Spears hearing that on May 25,

1995, he refused to accept the shoes ordered by the medical staff

because they did not have built-in arch supports. 

The record is devoid of any evidence pointing toward

deliberate indifference and indicates nothing more than a

disagreement with the medical treatment received. See Varnado,

920 F.2d at 321. 

This appeal presents no issue of arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.

R. 42.2. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3890

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy

Act of 1988.Conservation and Technology Competitiveness

108TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3890

AN ACT

To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation

and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3890 EH

1 SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

2 (a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section

3 9 of the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and

4 Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C.

5 5108) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

7 ‘‘There are authorized to be appropriated to the Sec8 retary to carry out this Act for fiscal year 2005, an

9 amount equal to the amount appropriated for the same

10 purposes for fiscal year 2004, and $20,000,000 for each

11 of the fiscal years 2006 through 2009.’’.

12 (b) STEEL PROJECT PRIORITIES.—Section 4(c)(1) of

13 the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and Tech14 nology Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C.

15 5103(c)(1)) is amended—

16 (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ‘‘coatings

17 for sheet steels’’ and inserting ‘‘sheet and bar

18 steels’’; and

19 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub20 paragraph:

21 ‘‘(K) The development of technologies

22 which reduce greenhouse gas emissions.’’.

23 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The Steel and

24 Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competi25 tiveness Act of 1988 is further amended—

26 (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and
3

•HR 3890 EH

1 (2) in section 4(b)—

2 (A) in the subsection heading, by inserting

3 ‘‘AND REPORT’’ after ‘‘MANAGEMENT PLAN’’;

4 (B) by striking ‘‘Within 6 months after the

5 date of enactment of this Act’’ and inserting

6 ‘‘Not later than 6 months after the date of en7 actment of the Act enacting this sentence’’;

8 (C) by striking ‘‘to expand the steel re9 search and development initiative to include

10 aluminum and’’; and

11 (D) by inserting ‘‘, and shall transmit such

12 plan to Congress’’ after ‘‘carry out the purposes

13 of this Act’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 7, 2004.

Attest:

Clerk.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-Q of AHPC Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") for the six months ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Alan
Zeffer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Debby Bills, as Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of his knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                               /s/ Alan E. Zeffer
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Alan E. Zeffer
                                               Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                               Date:  February 18, 2005

                                               /s/ Deborah J. Bills
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Name:  Deborah J. Bills
                                               Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                               Date:  February 18, 2005

                                       30
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM UNAUDITED
INTERIM STATEMENTS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10QSB FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  277,908
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    220,527
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               813,213
<PP&E>                                       1,858,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,262,292
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,579,753
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,456,438
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              402
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,261,472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,579,753
<SALES>                                        836,497
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               836,497
<CGS>                                          569,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  569,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,518,164
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             306,287
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,554,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,554,133)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,544,133)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.7


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We consent to the inclusion in this registration statement on Form S-1
of our report dated February 3, 1997, on our audit of the consolidated 
financial statements of Point Communications Limited Partnership. We also 
consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts".



                                            COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin
May 1, 1998