alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-14-00288-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

THEODORE R. MCMILLIN, Appellant,

v.

JULIE MARIE MCMILLIN, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 444th District Court of

Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

By two issues, appellant Theodore McMillin appeals the trial court’s dismissal of 

his petition for divorce. Appellee, Julie Marie McMillin, has filed a motion to dismiss this 

appeal on grounds that intervening events have rendered the appeal moot. Appellant 

has filed a response to the motion to dismiss in which he agrees that the appeal is now 

moot.
2

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the appellee’s unopposed 

motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See 

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A 

case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of 

the legal proceedings . . .”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) 

(stating that, for a controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between 

the parties that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought). Appellee’s motion 

to dismiss is granted and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED as moot. Costs will be taxed 

against appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the 

court will tax costs against the appellant."). Pending motions, if any, are likewise 

DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

22nd day of October, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 10 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       January 6, 1999.
    Resolved, That in continuance of the authority conferred in House Resolution 
614 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress adopted by the House of Representatives 
and delivered to the Senate on December 19, 1998, Mr. Hyde of Illinois, Mr. 
Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Mr. McCollum of Florida, Mr. Gekas of Pennsylvania, 
Mr. Canady of Florida, Mr. Buyer of Indiana, Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, Mr. Chabot 
of Ohio, Mr. Barr of Georgia, Mr. Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mr. Cannon of Utah, 
Mr. Rogan of California, and Mr. Graham of South Carolina are appointed managers 
to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson Clinton, President of 
the United States, that a message be sent to the Senate to inform the Senate of 
these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may, in connection with 
the preparation and the conduct of the trial, exhibit the articles of 
impeachment to the Senate and take all other actions necessary, which may 
include the following:
            (1) Employing legal, clerical, and other necessary assistants and 
        incurring such other expenses as may be necessary, to be paid from 
        amounts available to the Committee on the Judiciary under applicable 
        expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts of the House of 
        Representatives.
            (2) Sending for persons and papers, and filing with the Secretary of 
        the Senate, on the part of the House of Representatives, any pleadings, 
        in conjunction with or subsequent to, the exhibition of the articles of 
        impeachment that the managers consider necessary.

                                        Speaker of the House of Representatives.

            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 17.14 Appeals. ( a ) Notwithstanding the provisions in part 2 of this chapter concerning appeals generally from administrative actions, any appeal from the action of the superintendent of approving or disapproving a will shall be taken to the Secretary. Upon the superintendent's final action of approval or disapproval of a will, he shall immediately notify by mail all attorneys appearing in the case, together with interested parties who are not represented by attorneys, of his decision and of their right to file an appeal.
( b ) Any party desiring to appeal from the action of the superintendent shall, within 15 days after the date of the mailing of notice of the decision file with the superintendent a notice in writing of his intention to appeal to the Secretary, and shall, within 30 days after the mailing date of such notice by the superintendent, perfect his appeal to the Secretary by service of the appeal upon the superintendent who will transmit the entire record to the Secretary. If no notice of intention to appeal is given within 15 days, the superintendent's decision will be final.
( c ) Upon the filing of notice with the superintendent of intention to appeal or the perfecting of an appeal by service upon the superintendent, at the same time similar notice and service shall be effected by the party taking an appeal upon opposing counsel or litigants, and a statement included in the appeal that this has been done. A party taking an appeal may, within the same 30-day period allowed for perfecting an appeal, file a brief or other written statement of his contentions, showing also service of that brief upon opposing counsel or litigants. Opposing counsel or litigants shall have 30 days from the date of the service of appellant's brief upon them in which to file an answer brief, copies of which also shall be served upon the appellant or opposing counsel and litigants. Except by special permission, no other briefs will be allowed on appeal.
[26 FR 10930, Nov. 22, 1961]
### **CHAPTER 106—EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE**

Sec.
2131.
Reference to chapter 1606.
[2132 to 2137. Renumbered.]
2138.
Savings provision.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**1994**—Pub. L. 103–337, div. A, title XVI, §1663(b)(7), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 3007, added items 2131 and 2138 and struck out former items 2131 to 2138.

**1984**—Pub. L. 98–525, title VII, §705(a)(1), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2564, substituted "MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE" for "ENLISTED MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE OF THE READY RESERVE" in chapter heading, "Time limitation for use of entitlement" for "Termination of assistance; refund by member" in item 2133, "Termination of assistance" for "Reports to Congress" in item 2134, "Failure to participate satisfactorily; penalties" for "Termination of program" in item 2135, and added items 2136 to 2138.
#### WILSON, EX PARTE.

The writ of *habeas corpus ad*subjicien dum does not lie to bring up a person confined in the prison bounds upon a ca sa issued in a civil suit.

WILSON petitioned the , court for a writ of *haheas*corpus, and a *certiorari*to bring up the record of a civil cause in which judgment' had been rendered against him, upon which ara. *sa.*had. issued, hy which he was taken and was now in confinement within the prisons bounds upon a prison-bounds bond, His petition stated that the marshal had demanded of the creditor the daily allowance for the prisoner agreeably to the act of congress, concerning insolvent debtors within the district of Columbia, *(Laws U. S. vol.*6- *p.*301. § 15.) which the creditor had refused to pay, in consequence of which the marshal, had no longer any authority to detain him.

The act of congress provides that the circuit court of the district of Columbia shall, by a general order,, fix the daily allowance for the support of prisoners in éxecution for debt in ■ civil suits, and that “ no person, taken in execution for debt or damages in a civil suit, shall be detained in prison therefor unless the creditor, his agent or attorney, shall,' after demand thereof by the marshal, pay, or give such security as he may require, to pay, such daily allowance, and the prison fees.

The marshal refused to discharge the *petitioner;*and his counsel, E. *J. Lee, now*moved for a *habeas corpus.*

Marshall, Ch. J.

after consultation with tKc, other judges, stated that the court was not *53that a *habeas corpus*is the proper remeciy, in a case of arrest under a civil process.

Habeas corpus' refused.
#### Dierck Schomacher v. Sophia Michaels.

Motion granted.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Export Administration (PECSEA) will meet on March 10, 2011, 1 p.m., at the U.S. Department of Commerce, Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 4830, 14th Street between Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The PECSEA provides advice on matters pertinent to those portions of the Export Administration Act, as amended, that deal with United States policies of encouraging trade with all countries with which the United States has diplomatic or trading relations and of controlling trade for national security and foreign policy reasons.

## Agenda

1. Welcome by Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security.

2. Opening remarks by the Chairman.

3. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.

4. Export Control Reform Update.

5. Administrative issues.

                    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 participants on a first come, first served basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov*                     no later than March 3, 2011.                

                    A limited number of seats will be available for the public session. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSEA. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSEA members, the PECSEA suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.*

For more information, contact Yvette Springer on 202-482-2813.

Dated: February 15, 2011.

Kevin J. Wolf,

Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.

[FR Doc. 2011-3918 Filed 2-22-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except un der the

limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________________

Nos. 97-40327 & 97-40617

Summary Calendar

____________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT JAY TASHBOOK,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:96-CR-32-1)

_________________________________________________________________

March 20, 1998

Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Tashbook, who pleaded guilty to one count of

traveling in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in sexual

acts with a minor and also to possessing three or more visual depictions

transported by computer in interstate commerce of minors engaging in

sexually explicit conduct, appeals one issue in his sentencing. He

contends that U.S.S.G. § 2G2 .4, as effective in 1995, did not explain

how its enhancement for “possessing ten or more

. . . items, containing

### 2

a visual depiction involving the sexual exploitation of a minor” applies

to d epictions stored on a computer. Finding no error in the trial

court’s sentencing decision, we affirm.

Tashbook cont e nds that the 20-30 graphic images that were

contained on his computer and depicted minors engaged in sexually

explicit activities were stored in one directory and were therefore like

images contained in one magazine, which would be counted as one item for

purposes of this sentencing enhancement. This legal argument is

foreclosed by Tashbook’s guilty plea. First, Tashbook pled guilty to

the crime of possessing “ three or more visual depictions transported by

computer” (emphasis added), a plea utterly inc onsistent with the

contention that for sentencing purposes, he possessed only one offending

item. Second, his guilty plea agreement specifically states that he

“possessed ten (10) or more items containing a visual depicti o n

involving the sexual exploitation of a m i nor as referenced in the

specific offense characteristics of U.S.S.G. § 2G2.4. ” (emphasis added).

Having stipulated to the precise facts that undergird

application of this sentencing enhancement, Tashbook cannot now turn

around on appeal and assert that possessing more than three items, and

ten or more item s of computer-transmitted visual depictions of sexual

exploitation of a minor are in fact only one such depiction for criminal

purposes. Even if Tashbook had not foreclosed this argument by his own

agreement, however, we would be skeptical of the conte ntion that

transmission of these images over the Internet could result in a finding

that only one offending item existed based solely on the way in which

defendant chose to store the images in his computer.

### 3 The sentence imposed by the trial court is AFFIRMED

.
# C_2013316EN.01000601.xml

| 30.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 316/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 316/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2013/C 316/02

| Date of adoption of the decision | 16.8.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.36649 (13/N) |
| Member State | Czech Republic |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Podpora vybraných činností zaměřených na ozdravování chovů prasat |
| Legal basis | 1) | Zákon č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství |

Date of adoption of the decision

16.8.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.36649 (13/N)

Member State

Czech Republic

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Podpora vybraných činností zaměřených na ozdravování chovů prasat

Legal basis

1)

Zákon č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství

| 2) | Zákon č. 166/1999 Sb., o veterinární péči a o změnách některých souvisejících zákonů |
| --- | --- |

2)

Zákon č. 166/1999 Sb., o veterinární péči a o změnách některých souvisejících zákonů

| 3) | Zásady, kterými se stanovují podmínky pro poskytování dotací na základě § 2 a § 2d zákona č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství |
| --- | --- |

3)

Zásady, kterými se stanovují podmínky pro poskytování dotací na základě § 2 a § 2d zákona č. 252/1997 Sb., o zemědělství

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Risk and crisis management (AGRI)

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

| | Overall budget: CZK 3 017 000 000 |
| --- | --- |

Overall budget: CZK 3 017 000 000

| | Annual budget: CZK 431 000 000 |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: CZK 431 000 000

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

1.1.2014-31.12.2020

Economic sectors

Animal production

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministerstvo zemědělství |
| --- |
| Těšnov 17 |
| 117 05 Praha 1 |
| ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA |

Ministerstvo zemědělství

Těšnov 17

117 05 Praha 1

ČESKÁ REPUBLIKA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
#### § 212.22 Leases for subsurface storage of oil or gas.

The provisions of § 211.22 of this subchapter are applicable to leases under this part.
§ 167.3 Objectives. It is the purpose of the regulations in this part to aid the Navajo Indians in achievement of the following objectives: ( a ) The preservation of the forage, the land, and the water resources on the Navajo Reservation, and the building up of those resources where they have deteriorated.
( b ) The protection of the interests of the Navajo Indians from the encroachment of unduly aggressive and anti-social individuals who may or may not be members of the Navajo Tribe.
( c ) The adjustment of livestock numbers to the carrying capacity of the range in such a manner that the livestock economy of the Navajo Tribe will be preserved.
( d ) To secure increasing responsibility and participation of the Navajo people, including tribal participation in all basic policy decisions, in the sound management of one of the Tribe's greatest assets, its grazing lands, and to foster a better relationship and a clearer understanding between the Navajo people and the Federal Government in carrying out the grazing regulations.
( e ) The improvement of livestock through proper breeding practices and the maintenance of a sound culling policy. Buck and bull pastures may be established and maintained either on or off the reservation through District Grazing Committee and Central Grazing Committee action.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News

                              -  1 
                              -  2 
                              -  3 
                              -  4 
                              -  5 
                              -  6 

Coast Guard Decommissions 9th High Endurance Cutter after Nearly 50 YearsApril 2, 2018 — HONOLULU, Hawaii -- The Coast Guard decommissioned its ninth High Endurance Cutter after nearly 50 years of service as part of recapitalization efforts during a ceremony at Coast Guard Base Honolulu,... MORE 

----

Army Provides Animal Care, Surgeries in Yap during Pacific Partnership 2018April 2, 2018 — YAP, Micronesia -- Two U.S. Army veterinarians and an Army animal care specialist conducted surgeries on dogs and cats and shared knowledge and practices with local volunteers during Pacific... MORE 

----

                              -  1 
                              -  2 
                              -  3 
                              -  4 
                              -  5 
                              -  6 

2024 (327)2023 (825)2022 (1193)2021 (1066)2020 (1083)2019 (1166)2018 (1116)December (66)November (84)October (103)September (98)August (110)July (89)June (91)May (98)April (102)March (101)February (95)January (79)2017 (1356)2016 (1475)2015 (1408)2014 (904)2013 (32)2012 (4)

About DoDDoD CareersJoin the MilitaryNewsUSA.govPhotos & VideosPrivacy & SecurityTop Issues

US INDOPACOM Inspector GeneralDoD Inspector General Accessibility/Section 508DoD FOIAUS INDOPACOM FOIALink DisclaimerNo FEAR ActRecovery ActINDOPACOM Webmaster

                  - Facebook
                  - X
                  - YouTube
                  - Instagram
                  - RSS

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7005

THOMAS WILLIAM BROWNING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STEVE HARPER, Metropolitan Drug Enforcement

Network Team Police Officer; M.K. CRUICKSHANK,

Senior Trooper,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

KANAWHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; D.G.

PAINTER, Resources Officer; WEST VIRGINIA

STATE POLICE; STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; COUNTY

OF KANAWHA,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II,

District Judge. (CA-00-619-2)

Submitted: December 11, 2003 Decided: December 19, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.
2

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas William Browning, Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Marlene Kirk,

PULLIN, FOWLER & FLANAGAN, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia;

Michael Deering Mullins, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Thomas William Browning appeals the district court judgment

and order entering judgment in favor of the defendants. Browning

filed a complaint alleging excessive force by two law enforcement

officials during an arrest. After a bench trial, the district court

dismissed one defendant as a matter of law and the other defendant

on the facts. We affirm.

We find the district court did not abuse its discretion

denying the motion for production of transcripts at government

expense. Insofar as Browning claims his counsel was ineffective,

the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel does

not apply in civil cases. Sanchez v. United States Postal Service,

785 F.2d 1236, 1237 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED