alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-94,022-03

EX P ARTE ARTIE JOS EPH RILEY JR., Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. C-372-W012186- 1087825-B IN THE 372ND DIST RICT COURT F ROM TARRA NT COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Ap p l i ca nt was convicted of ag g rava ted sexual assault of a child and sentenc ed to fift ee n y ear s’ i mprisonment. Applicant filed this application for a writ of hab ea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his g uilty plea was involuntary

. Ex parte Morrow , 952 S.W .2d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Strickland v. W ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984). He say s he is ac t u al ly innocent, but trial counsel coer ced him to plead g uilty despite a l ac k o f ev i d ence. The trial court enter ed an or der de signa ting issues, whic h issues remain unr esolved. The a pplication is remande d to the trial court to complete its evidentiar y investiga tion and make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law resolving the disputed issues. The trial court shall also2

make finding s reg arding whether lache s is applicable to the consideration o f t h e h abea s claims. C a r r i o v. S t a t e , 992 S.W .2d 486 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W .3d 206 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the t ri al co u rt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige n t an d wants t o be represe nted by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repre sent him a t the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial c ourt shall immediately notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether Applicant’s plea was involuntary and whether lache s is applicable to the claims. The trial court may make any other finding s and conc lusions that it deems a ppropriate

. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions o f law withi n ninety day s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavits, motio n s, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: OCTOB ER 12, 2022 Do not publish
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

I,
Tom W. Olofson, Chief Executive Officer of EPIQ Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, and
Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to which this
Exhibit is attached (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 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/TOM W. OLOFSONTom W. Olofson | 
|------------------------------- | 
|Dated: October 25, 2002         | 

I,
Elizabeth M. Braham, Chief Financial Officer of EPIQ Systems, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify pursuant to Section 1350, of chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code, and
Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge (1) the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company to which this Exhibit
is attached (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 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/ELIZABETH M. BRAHAMElizabeth M. Braham | 
|----------------------------------------- | 
|Dated: October 25, 2002                   | 

---

QuickLinks
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00091-CV

Andre Joel Howard, Appellant

v.

Harris County Hospital District and TWCC, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-05-003705, HONORABLE STEPHEN YELENOSKY, JUDGE PRESIDING 

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

Andre Joel Howard filed a notice of appeal on February 7, 2008. He has perfected

appeal from his “Motion to Extend Time to File Motion to Reconsider Mandate Motion to Amend

Plaintiff’s Motion to Appeal Motion to Reinstate.” An appeal lies only from a final judgment

or appealable interlocutory order. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 988 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex. 2001)

(final judgment); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (West Supp. 2007) (categories of

appealable interlocutory orders). Appellant’s previous appeal in the same underlying cause was

dismissed by this Court for want of jurisdiction because he attempted to appeal orders that were

not subject to appeal. See Howard v. Harris County Hosp. Dist., No. 03-06-00488-CV, slip. op.

(Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 7, 2006). His motion to reinstate the appeal was denied by this Court.

The Texas Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Howard v. Harris County Hosp. Dist.,

No. 07-330, 2007 Tex. LEXIS 571, *1 (Tex. 2007). The time has long since passed for any further
 Of course, given that his appeals have been dismissed for lack of an appealable order, his case 1

remains pending in the trial court.

 Appellant’s pending motion to proceed as an indigent is dismissed. 2

2

review of this Court’s dismissal of his previous attempted appeal. The order from which he now

attempts to appeal is not appealable.

1

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

2

 

W. Kenneth Law, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Pemberton and Waldrop

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 12, 2008
2010-0147.

#### State v. Haschenburger.

Mahoning App. No. 08-MA-223, 2009-Ohio-6527. Reported at 124 Ohio St.3d 1542, 2010-Ohio-1557, 924 N.E.2d 844. On motion for reconsideration. Motion denied.

Brown, C.J., dissents.
EX-33.11
(logo) WestLake
SETTLEMENT SERVICES


Mark J. Girasole
President


ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE


The Tax Outsourcing Service Agreement dated as of October 1, 2006 (together with
all amendments thereto, the "Agreement"), between Aurora Loan Services and
WestLake Settlement Services, LLC.

I, Mark Girasole, the president of WestLake Settlement Services, certify to
Aurora Loan Services, with the knowledge and intent that it will rely upon this
certification, that:

(1) As of and for the year ended December 31, 2007, WestLake Settlement
Services, LLC has complied with the applicable servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB applicable to WestLake (the "Applicable
Servicing Criteria"):

1122(d)(4)(xi) Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or
insurance payments) are made on or before the related penalty or expiration
dates, as indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments,
provided that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30
calendar days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in
the transaction agreements.

1122(d)(4)(xii) Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to
be made on behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not
charged to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error
or omission.

WESTLAKE SETTLEMENT SERVICES


/s/ Mark Girasole
Mark Girasole, President
March 3, 2008


1 American Way * DFW 6-4-100 * Westlake, TX 76262 *T 817 699 5733 *
www.westlake.com
#### JACK SMITH *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

*MarkM. Rembish,*special public defender, in support of the petition.

*James M. Ralls,*senior assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided July 1, 2010

The petitioner Jack’s Smith’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 121 Conn. App. 85 (AC 30278), is denied.

EVELEIGH, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.
#### Chattanooga, Rome and Southern Railroad Co. *v.*Swafford.

Argued April 5,

Decided April 27, 1901.

Action for damages. Before Judge Henry. Chattooga superior court. December 17, 1900.

This action was on account of personal injuries from the derailment of a train of the defendant, on which the plaintiff was a passenger, caused by a collision of th'e rear end of the train with a cow while moving backward. He alleged that the defendant was neg*364ligent because the train was running at a reckless rate of speed, and without any one at the rear to guide it, apply brakes, or give the proper signals in the event of danger, when great care should have been exercised in approaching the place where the collision occurred, which was a public road crossing within the limits of a station. There was a verdict against the defendant for $700, and it made a motion for a new trial, to the overruling of which it excepted. One ground of the motion is that the court erred in charging the jury as follows: “ In order that the plaintiff may recover, if the defendant was negligent as charged, and caused his injury, it is not necessary that it be shown that he was injured in all of the ways he charges, in the details or particulars, to his person, or to the extent he charges, as to any one or more, or all of them; because, owing him the, duty that the railroad did, if he was its passenger at the time, if it was negligent in the way he charges, that is if it did or failed to do the things he. sets up as constituting negligence, and if he was injured or hurt on his person at all, then he would be entitled to recover something.” It is alleged that this was erroneous, because the last clause, “if it did or failed to do the things he sets up,” etc., expresses an opinion that the doing or not doing of the acts complained of would constitute negligence.

*363Little, J.

Inasmuch as the charge excepted to in the 8th ground of the motion for a new trial was in violation of section 4834 of the Civil Code, which forbids a judge to express or intimate “ his opinion as to what has or has not been proved,” and declares that “ such violation shall be held by the Supreme Court to be error, and the decision in such case reversed, and a new trial granted in the court below,” a new trial is ordered. See *West End Street Ry. Co.*v. *Mozely,*79 *Ga.*463 ; *Covington*v. *W. & A. R. Co.,*81 *Ga.*273; *Georgia R. Co.*v. *Clary,*103 *Ga.*639.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*

*364
      *J. D. Taylor*and *A. 0. King,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. H. Ennis*and *Nat Harris,*contra.
Order entered August 1 6 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00841 - CV GUDAYE GOBEZIE, Appellant

V. SANDRA CASTILLO AND JORGE VALERIANO, Appellee On Appeal fr om the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 15 - 03934



### O RDER The trial court has found appellant indigent

. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 20.1(i). Accordingly,

we ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre and Tenesa Sha w, Official Court Reporter of the 192 nd Judicial District Court, to file the appellate record without advance payment of costs. See id. 20.1(k). The record shall be filed no later than August 23, 2016. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre, Ms. Shaw, and the parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
|   | (1) (2) | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|--------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | March      12, 2008 |
|--------|---------------------|

|   |   | /s/      Michael A. Jackson                                       |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael      A. JacksonPresident      and Chief Executive Officer |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,556
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                        63
<INVENTORY>                                     55,513
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               156,806
<PP&E>                                         372,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                 148,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 434,615
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,714
<BONDS>                                         62,026
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,310
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     267,179
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   434,615
<SALES>                                         69,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,165
<CGS>                                           50,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   50,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,874
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    91
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,486
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,845
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,641
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,641
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.25


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Gerald J. Ford, Chief Executive Officer of California Federal Preferred
Capital Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly
          period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
          (15 U. S. C. 78m); and

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



Dated:  November 6, 2002



                                                 /s/ Gerald J. Ford
                                                 ---------------------------
                                                 Gerald J. Ford
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated financial statements of Unisource Worldwide, Inc. and
subsidiaries and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                      52,330,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              688,615,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                25,302,000
<INVENTORY>                                483,962,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,254,356,000
<PP&E>                                     442,625,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             200,658,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,193,828,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      617,523,000
<BONDS>                                    656,682,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        69,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 856,840,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             2,193,828,000
<SALES>                                  3,737,055,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         3,737,055,000
<CGS>                                    3,100,999,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            3,100,999,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           736,889,000<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             6,249,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          24,743,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (131,825,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                              (37,899,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (93,926,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (93,926,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)<F3>
        
<FN>
<F1>Represents special charge, and selling, general and administrative expenses,
excluding provision for losses on accounts receivable.
<F2>Represents basic earnings per share.
<F3>Represents diluted earnings per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF ATASCOSA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on July 30, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of A.R.P., et al., Children, Appellant

V.

No. 04-14-00140-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 13-01-0023-CVA

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s 

Order of Termination is affirmed. No costs of appeal are assessed because 

appellants are indigent.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth 

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Catherine Stone, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas, 

with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on January 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00140-CV

In the Interest of A.R.P., et al., Children

v.

(NO. 13-01-0023-CVA IN 81ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF ATASCOSA COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

CLERK'S RECORD

FILING

$0.00

$195.00

INDIGENT

INDIGENT

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF 

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of 

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and 

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for 

the Fourth District of Texas, this January 23, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 3853
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2844

To renew until January 1, 1996, the previous suspension of duty on certain

chemicals, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 3, 1993

Mr. SANTORUM introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To renew until January 1, 1996, the previous suspension

of duty on certain chemicals, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. DUTY SUSPENSIONS.

4 Each of the following headings of the Harmonized

5 Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by strik6 ing out ‘‘12/31/90’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/95’’:

7 (1) Heading 9902.29.56 (relating to diphenyl8 guanidine and di-o-tolylguanidine).

9 (2) Heading 9902.29.77 (relating to

10 dicyclohexylbenzothiazylsulfenamide).
2

•HR 2844 IH

1 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsection

3 (b), the amendments made by section 1 apply with respect

4 to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for con5 sumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the

6 enactment of this Act.

7 (b) RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.—Notwithstanding

8 section 514 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514)

9 or any other provision of law to the contrary, upon a re10 quest filed with the appropriate customs officer before the

11 90th day after the date of the enactment of this Act, any

12 entry or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption—

13 (1) which was made after December 31, 1992,

14 and before the 15th day after the date of the enact15 ment of this Act; and

16 (2) with respect to which there would have been

17 no duty if any amendment made by the first section

18 of this Act applied to such entry or withdrawal;

19 shall be liquidated or reliquidated as though such amend20 ment applied to such entry or withdrawal.

Æ
[No. 25257-4-III.

Division Three.

August 21, 2007.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Lucio Cruz Benavidez, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Benton County, No. 05-1-01105-3, Cameron Mitchell, J., entered June 1, 2006. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Brown, J., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kulik, J.
Supply Agreement



 

 
 Exhibit 10.ii.ee 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENT 
 FEED GRADE PHOSPHATES (MONOCAL) 
 THAILAND 
  

			
	DATE:	  	MAY 16, 2006
		
	SELLER:	  	MOSAIC FERTILIZER LLC, d.b.a.
		  	MOSAIC FEED INGREDIENTS
		  	8813 HWY 41 SOUTH
		  	RIVERVIEW, FL 33569
		
	BUYER:	  	CARGILL SIAM LTD.
		  	18TH FLOOR SINDHORN TOWER III
		  	BANGKOK 10330 THAILAND
		
	PRODUCT:	  	MONOCALCIUM PHOSPHATE (MONOCAL)
		
	SPECIFICATIONS:	  	TYPICAL MOSAIC SPECIFICATIONS
		
	MARKET:	  	THAILAND
		
	PERIOD:	  	JUNE 2006 THROUGH MAY 2007
		
	PRICING:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	QUANTITY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	DELIVERY:	  	TO BE NEGOTIATED AT TIME OF PURCHASE
		
	PAYMENT:	  	30 DAYS
		
	TERMS:	  	MOSAIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO APPLY. (ATTACHED)

  

									
	CARGILL SIAM LTD.	 		  	MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC
					
	By:	  	  
	 		  	By:	 	  

	Name:	  	  
	 		  	Name:	 	  

	Its:	  	  
	 		  	Its: