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

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTHCOURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-06-006-CV

NO. 2-06-155-CV

Ex Parte S.R.D., a child

In the Interest of B.G.D. a/k/a S.R.D., A Child	APPELLANT

	----------

	FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY	NO. 2-006  -04400                  -CV

JOSEPH H. LEE, III, VIRGINIA K. LEE AND 	APPELLANTS

PATRICIA LEE BARROW AND SAVINGS 

OF AMERICA, INC.		   APPELLANT	

	V.

 OPAL LEE, IN HER CAPACITY AS 	APPELLEE

 TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF 

THE ESTATE OF DALE T. LEE, DECEASED	

	----------

	FROM THE         PROBATE DISTRICT COURT  NO. 2 OF                    TARRANT COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered appellant’s [s’]’ “Motion To Dismiss aAppealNotice Of Nonsuit.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See TEX. R. APP. P.Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by the appellants [ [s][- [oOR the the party incurring the same], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P.Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  

    HOLMAN, GARDNER, and WALKER                                     , JJ.

DELIVERED:    September 28, 2006  

	COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-09211-21129              -CV

FFfFPpP 2000AaA 1 LlLPpP aAnNdD FfFFfFPpP 2000AaA GgGPpP LlLLlLCcCFFfFPpP 2000AaA 2 LlLPpP aAnNdD FfFFfFPpP 2000AaA GgGPpP LlLLlLCcC	APPELLANTS	

	V.

ThHrRiIfFtT-WaAyY, InNcC. StToOrReE SoOlLuUtTiIoOnNsS, InNcC.	APPELLEE

	----------

	FROM THE 352ND          DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT                     COUNTY

	----------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

	----------

	We have considered “aaAppellant’s [s’] “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.”  It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

	Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant[s], for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d). [OR the party incurring the same, for which let execution issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.]

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:   DAUPHINIOT, GARDNER, ANand WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.OT, 

DELIVERED:  November 129, 2009
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29343]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1956]


Restricted Approval for Production Authority, Foreign-Trade Zone 
143, Mitsubishi Rayon Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc., Subzone 143D 
(Carbon Fiber); Sacramento, CA

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    WHEREAS, Mitsubishi Rayon Carbon Fiber and Composites, Inc. 
(formerly Grafil, Inc.) (MRCFC), operator of Subzone 143D, has 
requested authority to produce polyacrylonitrile (PAN)-based carbon 
fiber under FTZ procedures within Subzone 143D, at MRCFC's facilities 
in Sacramento, California (B-54-2012, docketed 07-26-2012);
    WHEREAS, notice inviting public comment has been given in the 
Federal Register (77 FR 45575-45576, 8/1/2012 and 79 FR 12150, 3/4/
2014) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    WHEREAS, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations would be satisfied, and that the proposal would 
be in the public interest if subject to the restriction listed below;
    NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby orders:
    The application for production authority under zone procedures 
within Subzone 143D, at the MRCFC facilities in Sacramento, California, 
as described in the application and Federal Register notice, is 
approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.13, and further subject to a restriction that all foreign-
status PAN fiber admitted for MRCFC's production activity must be re-
exported (entry for U.S. consumption is not authorized).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this December 6, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 2014-29343 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Lee David HUMPHREY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark MCKINNA, Warden of Crowley County Correctional Facility, and Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 00-8041.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 21, 2001.

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and *741MURPHY, Circuit Judges.*

*

 After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

KELLY, Circuit Judge.

Mr. Humphrey, appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Humphrey is a Wyoming state prisoner. He argues that his detention in a private correctional facility in Colorado entitles him to habeas corpus relief. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and construe Mr. Humphrey’s petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In light of our decision in *Montez v. McKinna,*208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.2000) (no federal constitutional right to incarceration in any particular prison, private or public), we DENY Mr. Humphrey’s application for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. *See id.*at 865-66. Mr. Humphrey’s attempt to distinguish *Montez*as premised upon a transfer pursuant to the Western Interstate Corrections Compact is neither accurate nor persuasive.

**

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Leonard R. Stein-Sapir, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Morgan’s Foods, Inc.; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofFebruary 27, 2005 (the “Evaluation Date”); and
c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialdata and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internalcontrols; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and
6.  The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.     Date: May 31, 2005   /s/ Leonard R. Stein-Sapir            Leonard R. Stein-Sapir        Chairman of the Board,        Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

              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 of  First Cash Financial  Services,
 Inc. (the "Company") on  Form 10-Q for the  quarterly period ended June  30,
 2004, as  filed with  the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on  the  date
 hereof (the "Report"),  I, R.  Douglas Orr  certify, pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.
 Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
 of 2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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


 Date:  August 6, 2004


 /s/ R. DOUGLAS ORR
 --------------------------------------
 R. Douglas Orr
 Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         121,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  256,719
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (13,596)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      12,348,775
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,301,147)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,896,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          355,311
<BONDS>                                      7,611,993
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,928,904
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,896,208
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,449,053
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,355,046
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,687)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             155,390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (56,696)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (56,696)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (56,696)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.09)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

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-K of Huntsman Corporation and Huntsman International LLC (the "Companies") for the year
ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Peter R. Huntsman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 Companies.

|                                                                               |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|                                                                               |  | 
|/s/PETER R. HUNTSMANPeter R. Huntsman Chief Executive
OfficerFebruary 22, 2008 |  | 

---



QuickLinks
#### Olaf Peter JUDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis Michael NERNEY, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Northern District of California; Stephen R. Kotz, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM; John J. Kelly, U.S. Attorney, Albuquerque, NM; Michael Yamaguchi, U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA; Robert L. Holler, District Director, U.S. Customs Service, El Paso, Texas; Leonard S. Walton, Acting Assistant Commissioner, U.S. Customs Service, Washington, DC; Bonnie L. Gay, FOIA Unit, Attorney in Charge, Washington, DC; John/Jane Doe, 1-25; and United States of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-2437.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

May 8, 2001.

Before SEYMOUR, McKAY, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir.R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s decision that equitable tolling of the statute of limitations permits the government to proceed in a judicial forfeiture action against Appellant’s personal property. In *Juda v. Nerney,*No. 99-2070, 2000 WL 419823 (10th Cir. Apr. 17, 2000), we held that the government must return to Appellant items of his personal property or their monetary equivalents unless “the government has a valid *711argument against the operation of the statute of limitations.” *Id.*at *3. Upon remand for such a determination, the magistrate judge concluded that equitable tolling principles should apply in this case, citing *United States v. $57,960.00 in U.S. Currency, 58*F.Supp.2d 660 (D.S.C.1999), for support. Record, Doe. 59, at 7-9. The magistrate judge recommended that the statute of limitations on bringing a forfeiture action be tolled from October 27, 1991, until April 17, 2000, with respect to all items of Appellant’s personal property and jewelry. *See id.*at 10. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s analysis and recommendations. Record, Doc. 68. After reviewing the analysis of the magistrate judge and the decision of the district court, we AFFIRM for the reasons given in those opinions.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir.R. 36.3.
<page>   EXHIBIT 32.02


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 of Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer, Demeter Management Corporation,
the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey D. Hahn

Name:		Jeffrey D. Hahn
Title:	Chief Financial Officer

Date:		May 17, 2004
EXHIBIT 21
 Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries, and Operating Divisions,
of Myers Industries, Inc.  As of December 31, 2010
 North and Central American Operations
 Ameri-Kart Corp.
    
    Kansas WEK South Corp
    
    North CarolinaAmeri-Kart (MI) Corp.
    
    MichiganBuckhorn Inc.
    
    Ohio BRP Hannibal Inc.
    
    MissouriGrower Express Trucking, Inc.
    
    OhioJMKO Corp.
    
    Missouri AC Buckhorn LLC (50%)
    
    MissouriLone Star Plastics, Inc.
    
    Nevada Amerikan LLC
    
    Florida Kord USA, Inc.
    
    South Carolina Texan Polymer Group, Inc.
    
    Texas WhiteRidge Plastics, LLC
    
    North CarolinaMYE Automotive, Inc.
    
    Delaware MRP, Inc.
    
    Michigan WEK Industries, Inc.
    
    DelawareMYE Canada Operations Inc.
    
    CanadaMYEcap Financial Corp.
    
    OhioMYELux, LLC
    
    OhioMyers do Brasil Embalagens Plasticas Ltda.
    
    BrazilMyers Tire Supply International, Inc.
    
    Ohio Myers de El Salvador S.A. De C.V. (75%)
    
    El Salvador Orientadores Comerciales S.A.
    
    Guatemala Myers de Panama S.A.
    
    Panama Myers TSCA, S.A.
    
    PanamaMyers de El Salvador S.A. De C.V. (25%)
    
    El SalvadorMyers Missouri, Inc.
    
    Missouri AC Buckhorn LLC (50%)
    
    MissouriMyers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc.
    
    OhioMyers Tire Supply.com, Inc.
    
    OhioPatch Rubber Company
    
    North Carolina Kwik Patch Private Ltd. (39.98%)
    
    IndiaProductivity California, Inc.
    
    California




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 21 continued
 Direct and Indirect Subsidiaries, and Operating Divisions,
of Myers Industries, Inc.  As of December 31, 2010
 Reported Operating Divisions of Myers Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries
 Akro-Mils (of Myers Industries, Inc.)
    
    Akron, OhioDillen Products (of Myers Industries, Inc.)
    
    Middlefield, OhioMyers Tire Supply (of Myers Industries, Inc.)
    
    Akron, OhioBuckhorn Canada (of MYE Canada Operations Inc.)
    
    Ontario, CanadaMyers Tire Supply of
Canada (of MYE Canada Operations Inc.)
    
    Ontario, CanadaListo Products (of MYE
Canada Operations Inc.)
    
    Yukon TerritoryITML Horticultural
Products (of MYE Canada Operations Inc.)
    
    Ontario, Canada
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 20

- 00456

- CV

In re Frederick Manuel

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

_______________________ ___________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Justices Goo dwin, Triana, and Smith

Filed: October 6, 2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL J. BROWN, AIS 186027, :

Petitioner, :

vs. : CA 04-0818-BH-C

JERRY FARRELL, :

Respondent. :

ORDER

This action is before the Court on a complaint for habeas corpus relief

filed by Michael J. Brown, AIS 186027, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a

review of the complaint (Doc. 1), and the answer filed by respondent, Jerry

Farrell, on February 25, 2005 (Doc. 8), it is determined that petitioner should

be given an opportunity to respond to the statute-of-limitations defense

asserted by the respondent.

Respondent argues that Brown failed to file his federal habeas petition

within one year of the date upon which the judgment of conviction became final,

contrary to the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 244(d)(1)(A). Respondent

calculates that the one-year period ended October 18, 2001, one year and fortytwo days after his conviction and sentence on November 6, 2000, since no

direct appeal was taken. It is further argued that this period was not tolled by a

post-conviction motion since petitioner did not file his Rule 32 petition until

February 18, 2004. Thus, it is respondent’s argument that this habeas complaint

Case 1:04-cv-00818-BH-C Document 10 Filed 04/29/05 Page 1 of 2
2

is untimely filed and therefore barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

After a review of this issue, it does appear to the undersigned that the

respondent’s position is correct. Accordingly, petitioner shall SHOW CAUSE

not later than May 31, 2005, as to why this cause of action should not be

dismissed based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d)(1)(A). Should the petitioner fail to respond to this Order within the

authorized time period, an inference will be drawn from his failure to respond

that he has no rebuttal to the statute-of-limitations defense.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of April, 2005.

s/WILLIAM E. CASSADY 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-00818-BH-C Document 10 Filed 04/29/05 Page 2 of 2