alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<!tnurl nf J\pp:euls 

lJiiftq ilhifritt nf W:exus ut ilullus 

HAIDAR S. ALSALEH. Appellant 

No. 05-98-00023-CV V. 

HIY AM H. NAJIM, Appellee 

JUDGMENT 

Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 

CV96-00630-S). 

Opinion delivered per curiam before a panel 

of Justices Kinkeade, Bridges, and Roach. 

Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. Appellant shall 

bear all costs of appeal. 

Judgment entered February 26, 1999. 

JOHN R. ROACH 

JUSTICE 
DISMISSED and Opinion Filed February 26, 1999 

In The 

<rrnurl of 1\pp£als 

111iff4 :Sisfrirf nf W£xas at ilallas 

No. 05-98-00023-CV 

HAIDAR S. ALSALEH, Appellant 

v. 

HIYAM H. NAJIM, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 282"d Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV96-00630-S 

OPINION PER CURIAM 

Before Justices Kinkeade, Bridges, and Roach 

On appellee's January 28, 1999 motion, this appeal is DISMISSED as moot. See TEX. 

R .. APP. P. 43.2(£). 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47 

PER CURIAM
517 S OLEDAD S TREET R OBERT A

. S CHULMAN
S AN A NTONIO , T EXAS 78205

- 1508 RSCHULMAN @ SLH

- LAW

. COM

T ELEPHONE : (210) 538

- 5385 F ACSIMILE : (210) 538

- 5384

WWW.SLH

- LAW.COM & WWW.K12LAW.COM

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS FOR TEXAS PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Schulman, Lopez

, Hoffer & Adelstein , LLP

— Trusted advisers and advocates fo r Texas independent school districts, charter schools and local governments offering accessible, responsive legal representation to our clients. September 5 , 2015

By E

- Filing Submission

Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court of Appeals Attn: Liz Talerico, Deputy Clerk

Third District of Texas

P. O. Box 12547 Austin, Texas 78711

- 2547

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03

- 14

- 00283

- CV; 03

- 14

- 00360

- CV

Trial Court Case Number: D

- 1

- GN

- 14

- 000672

Style: Texas Education Agency and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education, in his Official Capacity v. American YouthWorks, Inc. d/b/a

American Yout hWorks Charter School

Texas Education Agency and Michael L. Williams, Commissioner of Education, in his Official Capacity v. American YouthWorks, Inc. d/b/a American YouthWorks Charter School; Honors Academy, Inc. d/b/a Honors Academy Charter School and A zleway Charter School

Dear Ms. Talerico:

In response to your September 2, 2015 notice regarding scheduling of oral argument in the above referenced proceedings, this letter will serve to confirm that the undersigned and Joseph E. Hoffer will appear on September 24, 2015 at 9:00 AM to present oral argument on behalf of American YouthWorks, Inc. d/b/a American YouthWorks Charter

School.

Please note the correct name of our law firm (effective April 1, 2015) for your records. ACCEPTED
03-14-00360-CV

6814104
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/7/2015 12:00:00 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKPage 2 September 5 , 2015

Yours truly,



### S

CHULMAN 

### , L OPEZ 

### , H OFFER 

### & A DELSTEIN 

### , LLP

Robert A. Schulman

RAS:cap

cc: By Email Transmission (and E

- Filing Notification)

Mr. Joseph E. Hoffer (Firm)

Ms. Shelley N. Dahlberg Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division

Mr. Kevin O’Hanlon O’Hanlon, McCollum & Demerath

Ms. Susan G. Morrison The Fowler Law Firm, PC
# C_2013079EN.01001301.xml

| 16.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 31 January 2013 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-540/10) (1)

1

(Cohesion Fund - Reduction of the financial assistance initially granted from the Cohesion Fund to four project stages concerning the construction of certain sections of the high-speed line linking Madrid and the French border - Time-limit for adopting a decision - Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 - Article 18(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1386/2002 - Additional works or services - Concept of ‘unforeseen circumstances’ - Article 20(2)(f) of Directive 93/38/EEC)

2013/C 79/21

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially, M. Muñoz Pérez and, subsequently, A. Rubio González, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and D. Recchia, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application, principally, for annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 6154 of 13 September 2010 reducing the assistance granted from the Cohesion Fund to the project stages ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-A’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 005), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo X-B (Avinyonet del Penedés-Sant Sadurní d’Anoia’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT. 008), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo XI-A and XI-B (Sant Sadurní d’Anoia-Gelida’) (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.009), ‘Línea de Alta Velocidad Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona-Frontera francesa. Tramo Lleida-Martorell (Plataforma). Subtramo IX-C’ (CCI No 2001.ES.16.C.PT.0010) and, alternatively, application to have that decision annulled in part in so far as it refers to the corrections applied to the amendments arising from the exceeding of the noise thresholds (Subsection IX-A), the change of PGOU (General Urban Development Plan) of the Ayuntamiento de Santa Oliva (Spain) (Subsection IX-A) and the differences in the geotechnical conditions (Subsections X-B. XI-A, XI-B and IX-C), reducing the amount of the corrections decided by the Commission by EUR 2 348 201,96.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 645 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 645

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
homeschooled students in Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps units.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2019

 Mr. Cotton (for himself and Mr. Jones) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for the inclusion of 
homeschooled students in Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps units.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF HOMESCHOOLED STUDENTS IN JUNIOR RESERVE 
              OFFICER'S TRAINING CORPS UNITS.

    Section 2031 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(g)(1) Each public secondary educational institution that 
maintains a unit under this section shall permit membership in the unit 
to homeschooled students residing in the area served by the institution 
who are qualified for membership in the unit (but for lack of 
enrollment in the institution).
    ``(2) A student who is a member of a unit pursuant to this 
subsection shall count toward the satisfaction by the institution 
concerned of the requirement in subsection (b)(1) relating to the 
minimum number of student members in the unit necessary for the 
continuing maintenance of the unit.''.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-31291

WADE P. JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State penitentiary, Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-2837-G

-------------------- June 23, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Wade P. Jackson, Louisiana prisoner No. 113076, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the dismissal of his habeas corpus application as time-barred by the one-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The district court determined that Jackson’s second through fifth state applications for post-conviction relief, which were dismissed as untimely pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8, were not “properly filed” as that termNo. 99-31291 -2-

** 184 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 1999).

*** 209 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 2000). is used in § 2244(d)(2), and thus, failed to toll the limitations period. Our recent opinions in Villegas v. Johnson ** and Smith v. Ward *** reflect that Jackson’s third and fourth state applications for post-conviction relief were, in fact, properly filed for purposes of § 2244(d) and that they tolled the 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) limitations period. With this tolling, Jackson’s federal habeas application is facially timely. Thus, Jackson has established that the district court erred by dismissing his petition as untimely. Slack v. McDaniel , ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1604 (April 26, 2000). We decline to address the merits of Jackson’s constitutional arguments as they were never considered by the district court. See Slack , 120 S. Ct. at 1604. Accordingly, we GRANT Jackson’s motion for a COA, VACATE the judgment dismissing his § 2254 application as time-barred, and REMAND the case for consideration of the merits of his claims.
See Whitehead v. Johnson , 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir. 1998)(granting COA, vacating district court dismissal of case for failure to exhaust state remedies, and remanding without briefing).
MOTION FOR COA GRANTED. VACATED AND REMANDED.
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT

USDA Seeks Comment on Ways to Help Businesses Start, Expand and Improve 

Cooperatives in Rural America

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24, 2021 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Deputy Under Secretary for Rural 

Development Justin Maxson today announced that the Department is seeking input on ways to make it easier 

for nonprofit groups and other organizations to help businesses form cooperatives.

The Department is interested in stakeholders’ recommendations to streamline application requirements and 

make other improvements to the Rural Cooperative Development Grant (RCDG) program. This program helps 

Cooperative Development Centers deliver programs to assist individuals and businesses to start, expand or 

improve rural cooperatives and other mutually-owned businesses. 

For example, the Department is seeking comments on topics including:

• How it should evaluate what constitutes an applicant’s proven track record of providing development 

assistance.

• How many years of experience are appropriate to show that an applicant has experience providing 

cooperative development technical assistance in rural areas.

• What criteria USDA should use to document and measure the effectiveness of an applicant’s rural 

economic development efforts.

• What criteria or factors USDA should focus on in determining eligibility for an applicant who seeks 

funding for a multi-year award.

USDA will hold a virtual listening session on these topics on Thursday, Sept. 16, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time. Interested parties may register at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2283339721495353867. 

Written comments on proposed changes to the RCDG program must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal at www.regulations.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Oct. 25, 2021. For additional 

information, see page 47289 of the Aug. 24 2021, Federal Register.

If you’d like to subscribe to USDA Rural Development updates, visit our GovDelivery subscriber page. 

###

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
#### § 157.212 Synthetic and liquefied natural gas facilities.

Subject to the notice requirements of §§ 157.205(b) and 157.208(c), the certificate holder is authorized to acquire, construct, modify, replace, and operate natural gas facilities that are used to transport either a mix of synthetic and natural gas or exclusively revaporized liquefied natural gas and that are not “related jurisdictional natural gas facilities” as defined in § 153.2(e) of this chapter. The cost of a project may not exceed the cost limitation provided in column 2 of table 1 to § 157.208(d). The certificate holder must not segment projects in order to meet this cost limitation.

[Order 686, 71 FR 63693, Oct. 31, 2006, as amended at 89 FR 16684, Mar. 8, 2024]
#### § 354.22 Surrender of license.

Each license which is suspended, or revoked, or has expired shall promptly be surrendered by the licensee to his immediate superior. Upon termination of the services of a licensed inspector, the licensee shall promptly surrender his license to his immediate superior.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<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>                                          45,302
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      173
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,049
<PP&E>                                          17,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (6,424)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,304
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        67,818
<OTHER-SE>                                    (32,195)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,596
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,089
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,536
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,384
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 712
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,499)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,656)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,203)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        

</TABLE>
#### Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Cole.

March 21, 1939.

James M. Gilbert, Judge.

B. M. LEE and PERCY E. SMITH for appellant.

E. L. MORGAN for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Creal, Commissioner

Dismissing.

The only issue in this case is whether appellee has paid certain mortgage bonds in full as is claimed by him or whether there is a balance of $248.11 due on such bonds as claimed by appellant. Hence as will be seen the amount in controversy is the balance claimed by appellant. The appeal was granted by the court below, therefore under sections 950-1 to 950-3, Kentucky Statutes, and on the authority of the cases of Lower v. Lower, 260 Ky. 729, 86 S. W. (2d) 682 and Wolfe v. Wolfe, 241 Ky. 344, 43 S. W. (2d) 1006, and other cases cited under those sections of the statute, the appeal must be and is hereby dismissed.
#### § 590.28 Other inspections.

Inspection program personnel will make periodic inspections of business premises, facilities, inventories, operations, transport vehicles, and records of egg handlers, and the records of all persons engaged in the business of transporting, shipping, or receiving any eggs or egg products.

[85 FR 68674, Oct. 29, 2020]
**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 report of Prospect Medical Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Samuel S. Lee, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 Exchange 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.

 
| February 14,   2011 | **/**s**/**SAMUEL S. LEE    |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------|
| ** **               | **Samuel S. Lee**           |
| ** **               | **Chief Executive Officer** |

 

----
# C_2012399EN.01000401.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG v Ritrama SpA

(Case C-133/11) (1)

1

(Area of freedom, security and justice - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict - Action for a negative declaration («negative Feststellungsklage») - Whether a person alleged to have committed a harmful act may bring a person who might be adversely affected, before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act allegedly occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict)

2012/C 399/05

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Folien Fischer AG, Fofitec AG

Applicants:

Defendant: Ritrama SpA

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of point (3) of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction in tort, delict or quasi-delict — Action for a negative declaration (negative Feststellungsklage) — Whether a person who may have committed a harmful act may bring the person potentially adversely affected before the courts with jurisdiction for the place where the act occurred or may occur, seeking a declaration that there is no liability in tort or delict.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Point (3) of Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for a negative declaration seeking to establish the absence of liability in tort, delict, or quasi-delict falls within the scope of that provision.

---

(1)  OJ C 204, 9.7.2011.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7400

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. HENRY LEE TAYLOR, JR., a/k/a James Blair, a/k/a Junebug, a/k/a Bug, a/k/a J.B. , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News

. Arenda L. Wright Allen , District Judge. ( 4:11

- cr - 00055

- AWA

- DEM

- 1 )

Submitted : March 12, 2021 Decided: March 17, 2021

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Henry Lee Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Henry Lee Taylor, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for compassionate release . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Taylor , No. 4:11

- cr - 00055

- AWA

- DEM

- 1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 3, 2020)

. We further deny Taylor’s motion to place his case in abeyance. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
§ 78.32 Brucellosis exposed swine. ( a ) Brucellosis exposed swine may be moved interstate only if accompanied by a permit and only for immediate slaughter as follows: ( 1 ) Directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
( 2 ) Directly to a stockyard posted under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 *et seq.*), or directly to a market agency or dealer registered under the Packers and Stockyards Act, for sale to a recognized slaughtering establishment.
( b ) Brucellosis exposed swine from a herd known to be affected with brucellosis may be moved interstate from the herd known to be affected only if such swine are individually identified by attaching to the left ear a metal tag bearing a serial number and the inscription, “U.S. Reactor,” or a metal tag bearing a serial number designated by the State animal health official for identifying brucellosis reactors.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0051) [59 FR 12533, Mar. 17, 1994, as amended at 59 FR 67133, Dec. 29, 1994]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In re David Lorenza Joyner

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00053

- CR

Trial court case number: 1446567

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

The en banc court has voted to deny relator’s motion for en banc reconsideration. It is

ordered that the motion for en banc reconsideration is denied

.

En banc court consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Ke yes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, and Lloyd.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting for the En Banc Court

Date: July 27, 2017