alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 13 - 00 322 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF C.A.S. AND J.M.S. II, CHILDREN

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 1 05 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam On August 14, 2013, appellant was notified that he failed to request the reporter’s
record and that, unless th e defect was cured within ten days, the Court would consider
and decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)

. Appellant did not respond to the notice and on September 4, 2013, appellant was advised that the brief was due on October 4, 2013. On October 23, 2013 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief had not been timely filed and that the appeal was subject to dismissal for want of prosecution2

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a)(1) unless , within ten days from the date of receip t o f the Court’s letter, appellant reasonably explained the failure and how the appellee was not significantly injured by the appellant's failure to timely file a brief. The
notice was sent to appellant's last known forwarding address; however, the notice was returned unclaimed and no response has been filed. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.1(b) requires unrepresented parties to sign any document filed and "give the party's mailing address, telephone number, and fax number, if any." See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 9.1(b). Appel lant has neither provided this C ourt with a forwarding address nor taken any other action to prosecute this appeal. Rule 42.3 permits an appellate court, on its own initiative and after giving ten days' notice to all parties, to dismiss th e appeal for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules. See id. 42.3(b), (c). Rule 2 authorizes an appellate court to suspend a rule's operation in a particular case to expedite a decision. See id. 2. Given the length of inactivity in this appeal and this court's inability to give effective notice to appellant during the period of inactivity, we suspend Rule 42.3's requirement of ten days' notice to all parties, and dismiss the appeal on our own motion. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See id. 38.8(a), 42.3(b),(c).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 5th day of December , 20 13

.
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 Health and Human Services

###### Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The meeting announced below concerns Conducting Research on Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Humanitarian Emergencies, Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) GH12-006, initial review.

In accordance with Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the aforementioned meeting: 

*Time and Date:*                        12:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m., May 22, 2012 (Closed).                    

*Place:*                         Teleconference.                    

*Status:*                         The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with provisions set forth in Section 552b(c)(4) and (6), Title 5 U.S.C., and the Determination of the Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, CDC, pursuant to Public Law 92-463.                    

*Matters To Be Discussed:*                         The meeting will include the initial review, discussion, and evaluation of applications received in response to “Conducting Research on Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Humanitarian Emergencies, FOA GH12-006, initial review.”                    

*Contact Person for More Information:*                         Sheree Williams, Scientific Review Officer, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of Science Quality, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop D-72, Atlanta, Georgia 30033, Telephone (404) 639-7742.                    

                        The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign                         **Federal Register**                         notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.                    

Dated: April 23, 2012.

Elaine L. Baker,

Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

[FR Doc. 2012-10260 Filed 4-26-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
§ 678.510 How must the Memorandum of Understanding be negotiated? ( a ) WIOA emphasizes full and effective partnerships between Local WDBs, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners. Local WDBs and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations. Local WDBs, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners may also request assistance from a State agency responsible for administering the partner program, the Governor, State WDB, or other appropriate parties on other aspects of the MOU.
( b ) Local WDBs and one-stop partners must establish, in the MOU, how they will fund the infrastructure costs and other shared costs of the one-stop centers. If agreement regarding infrastructure costs is not reached when other sections of the MOU are ready, an interim infrastructure funding agreement may be included instead, as described in § 678.715(c). Once agreement on infrastructure funding is reached, the Local WDB and one-stop partners must amend the MOU to include the infrastructure funding of the one-stop centers. Infrastructure funding is described in detail in subpart E of this part.
( c ) The Local WDB must report to the State WDB, Governor, and relevant State agency when MOU negotiations with one-stop partners have reached an impasse. ( 1 ) The Local WDB and partners must document the negotiations and efforts that have taken place in the MOU. The State WDB, one-stop partner programs, and the Governor may consult with the appropriate Federal agencies to address impasse situations related to issues other than infrastructure funding after attempting to address the impasse. Impasses related to infrastructure cost funding must be resolved using the State infrastructure cost funding mechanism described in § 678.730.
( 2 ) The Local WDB must report failure to execute an MOU with a required partner to the Governor, State WDB, and the State agency responsible for administering the partner's program. Additionally, if the State cannot assist the Local WDB in resolving the impasse, the Governor or the State WDB must report the failure to the Secretary of Labor and to the head of any other Federal agency with responsibility for oversight of a partner's program.
#### Reginald YOUNG, Director, Omaha Human Relations Department on behalf of Theardise LOWMAN, Plaintiff, Theardise Lowman, Appellant, v. Bracston L. OLDS; Myrtis E. Olds; B.L.’s Homes, Appellees.

No. 04-3711.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 2, 2006.

Filed: Feb. 22, 2006.

Theardise Lowman, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Dana C. Bradford, III, Justin D. Eichmann, Justin D. Eichmann, Bradford *&*Coenen, Omaha, NE, for Appellees.

Before MURPHY, HANSEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Theardise Lowman appeals the district court’s1 judgment in favor of defendants following a two-day jury trial in his action for intentional race discrimination in renting an apartment, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1982, and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 8601. We affirm.

We will affirm a jury verdict unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, we conclude that a reasonable jury could not have found for that party. *See Cross v. Cleaver,*142 F.3d 1059, 1066 (8th Cir.1998). The evidence here amply supports the jury’s verdict. Given Lowman’s credit score, which indicated a good chance he would be in default of a rent payment, the jury was free to believe Olds’s testimony that his decision not to rent to Lowman was based on Lowman’s credit history rather than his race. *See Morse v. S. Union Co.,*174 F.3d 917, 922-23 (8th Cir.1999) (jury is free to credit testimony as it believes appropriate and is to decide whose witnesses were telling truth); *Cabrera v. Jakabovitz,*24 F.3d 372, 383 (2d Cir.) (framework of burdens fashioned in Title VII cases is fully applicable to housing-discrimination cases), *cert, denied,*513 U.S. 876, 115 S.Ct. 205, 130 L.Ed.2d 135 (1994).

Contrary to Lowman’s arguments on appeal, he did not allege in his complaint that defendants’ policies were discriminatory under a disparate-impact theory, see *Oti Kaga, Inc. v. S.D. Hous. Dev. Auth.,*342 F.3d 871, 883 (8th Cir.2003) (to prove discrimination under disparate-impact analysis, plaintiff must show facially neutral policy has adverse impact on members of protected group), and he did not attempt to submit to the jury the investigation report from the City of Omaha’s Human Relations Department.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. We deny Lowman’s motion to supplement *141the record with evidence that was not before the jury. *See Dakota Indus., Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc.,*988 F.2d 61, 63 (8th Cir.1993) (appellate court generally will not consider evidence not contained in record below).

1

. The Honorable William Jay Riley, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 106

 102

 97

 98

 97

 99

 98

 99

 101

 97

 112

 120

 115

 126

 123

 122

 119

 105

 111

 114

 116

 112

 112

 113

 110

 116

 132

 147

 152

 157

 87

 87

 88

 88

 89

 88

 89

 86

 84

 89

 88

 82

 95

 103

 100

 94

 95

 93

 96

 96

 98

 101

 103

 100

 104

 99

 93

 118

 132

 118

 97

 95

 93

 93

 93

 96

 93

 96

 94

 94

 95

 101

 108

 114

 113

 111

 105

 98

 102

 103

 103

 106

 108

 105

 108

 110

 103

 132

 144

 145

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 11, 2005

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

STATEN ISLAND ON THE SOUTH FORK MOKELUMNE RIVER
§ 725.306 Withdrawal of a claim. ( a ) A claimant or an individual authorized to execute a claim on a claimant's behalf or on behalf of claimant's estate under § 725.305, may withdraw a previously filed claim provided that: ( 1 ) He or she files a written request with the appropriate adjudication officer indicating the reasons for seeking withdrawal of the claim;
( 2 ) The appropriate adjudication officer approves the request for withdrawal on the grounds that it is in the best interests of the claimant or his or her estate, and;
( 3 ) Any payments made to the claimant in accordance with § 725.522 are reimbursed.
( b ) When a claim has been withdrawn under paragraph (a) of this section, the claim will be considered not to have been filed.
#### In the Matter of Lawyers Mortgage Company (2156 Cruger Ave., New York City — Mortgage No. 101,038). William T. Jackson et al., as Trustees, Appellants; Felix A. Muldoon et al., as Trustees, et al., Respondents.

*830No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.; Townley, J., taking no part.
### §55. Acceptance of other sums

The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to receive into the Treasury, on the same terms as the original bequest of James Smithson, such sums as the Regents may, from time to time, see fit to deposit, not exceeding, with the original bequest, the sum of $1,000,000. This shall not operate as a limitation on the power of the Smithsonian Institution to receive money or other property by gift, bequest, or devise, and to hold and dispose of the same in promotion of the purposes thereof.

(R.S. §5591; Mar. 12, 1894, ch. 36, 28 Stat. 41.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §5591 derived from act Feb. 5, 1867, ch. 34, §1, 14 Stat. 391.

#### Amendments

1894—Act Mar. 12, 1894, made limitation on deposits into the Treasury inapplicable to receipt of gifts, bequests and devises and dispositions of money or other property.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY ELEV

 730.18

 730.74

 731.26

 731.74

 732.19

 732.62

 733.04

 728.98

 729.68

 730.14

 730.58

 731.01

 731.44

 726.92

 727.36

 729.35

 730.47

 731.33

 732.08

 732.87

 731.58

 730.05

 731.70

 728.87

 730.58

 732.64

 730.25

 728.23

 729.76

 731.06

 727.18

 1,584

 1,607

 1,629

 1,650

 1,669

 1,688

 1,707

 1,533

 1,563

 1,582

 1,600

 1,618

 1,637

 1,449

 1,467

 1,549

 1,596

 1,632

 1,665

 1,699

 1,643

 1,578

 1,648

 1,529

 1,600

 1,689

 1,587

 1,502

 1,566

 1,621

 1,459

STORAGE

+26

+23

+22

+21

+19

+19

+19

-174

+30

+19

+18

+18

+19

-188

+18

+82

+47

+36

+33

+34

-56

-65

+70

-119

+71

+89

-102

-85

+64

+55

-162

CHANGE

13

12

11

11

10

10

10

6

15

10

9

9

10

-3

9

41

24

18

17

17

50

57

35

23

36

45

31

31

32

28

14

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 94

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 92

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 78

 90

 0

 83

 0

 0

 82

 74

 0

 0

 96

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 2020 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: February 1, 2020

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -99 641 0 689

ACRE-FEET -99 1,271 0 1,367

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 1,367

 1,367

 1,558

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
### §452. Repealed. Aug. 26, 1954, ch. 937, title V, §542(a)(12), 68 Stat. 861

Section, acts Nov. 4, 1939, ch. 2, §12, 54 Stat. 10; Jan. 26, 1942, ch. 19, 56 Stat. 19, established the National Munitions Control Board. See former section 1934 and section 2778 of this title.

Subsec. (h) was subsequently repealed by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1076, §1(28), 68 Stat. 968.
#### § 702.316 Conclusion of conference; no agreement on all matters with respect to the claim.

When it becomes apparent during the course of the informal conference that agreement on all issues cannot be reached, the district director shall bring the conference to a close, shall evaluate all evidence available to him or her, and after such evaluation shall prepare a memorandum of conference setting forth all outstanding issues, such facts or allegations as appear material and his or her recommendations and rationale for resolution of such issues. Copies of this memorandum shall then be sent to each of the parties or their representatives, who shall then have 14 days within which to signify in writing to the district director whether they agree or disagree with his or her recommendations. If they agree, the district director shall proceed as in § 702.315(a). If they disagree (Caution: See § 702.134), then the district director may schedule such further conference or conferences as, in his or her opinion, may bring about agreement; if he or she is satisfied that any further conference would be unproductive, or if any party has requested a hearing, the district director shall prepare the case for transfer to the Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge (See § 702.317, §§ 702.331-702.351).

[42 FR 42551, Aug. 23, 1977, as amended at 60 FR 51348, Oct. 2, 1995]
#### § 702.171 Certification of exemption, general.

An employer may apply to the Director or his/her designee to certify a particular facility as one engaged in the building, repairing or dismantling of exclusively small vessels, as defined. Once certified, injuries sustained at that facility would not be covered under the Act except for injuries which occur over the navigable waters of the United States including any adjoining pier, wharf, dock, facility over land for launching vessels or for hauling, lifting or drydocking vessels. A facility otherwise covered under the Act remains covered until certification of exemption is issued; a certification will be granted only upon submission of a complete application (described in § 702.174), and only for as long as a facility meets the requirements detailed in section 3(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. 903(d). This exemption from coverage is not intended to be used by employers whose facilities from time to time may temporarily meet the criteria for qualification but only for facilities which work on exclusively small vessels, as defined.

[50 FR 396, Jan. 3, 1985]
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

728 

KA 11-01163 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, PERADOTTO, AND SCONIERS, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HARRY WILSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

 

LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MARY P. DAVISON OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (BRIAN D. DENNIS

OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (William F.

Kocher, J.), rendered September 30, 2010. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon a jury verdict, of burglary in the third degree and

petit larceny (four counts). 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him

upon a jury verdict of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law §

140.20) and four counts of petit larceny (§ 155.25). Contrary to

defendant’s contention, he was not denied a fair trial based on

cumulative errors made by County Court. The court properly denied his

request to charge trespass as a lesser included offense of burglary in

the third degree inasmuch as “there was no reasonable view of the

evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he entered [the

mall in question] without criminal intent and only subsequently formed

an intent to steal” (People v Zokari, 68 AD3d 578, lv denied 15 NY3d

758; see People v Smalls, 92 AD3d 420, 421; People v Mercado, 294 AD2d

805, 805, lv denied 98 NY2d 731). 

Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the court properly

admitted evidence concerning the barring notice issued to defendant

prohibiting him from entering onto the mall property because it was

relevant to establish that defendant knowingly entered the mall

unlawfully (see Penal Law § 140.20; see generally People v Alvino, 71

NY2d 233, 241-242). In addition, the court properly admitted evidence

with respect to the circumstances surrounding the issuance of that

barring order as necessary background and narrative information (see

generally People v Resek, 3 NY3d 385, 390). The probative value of

that evidence exceeded its potential for prejudice (see People v

Comfort, 60 AD3d 1298, 1301, lv denied 12 NY3d 924). Defendant failed
-2- 728 

KA 11-01163 

to request a limiting instruction concerning evidence of the barring

order and thus did not preserve for our review his contention that the

court should have issued such an instruction after that evidence was

admitted (see People v Moore [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1658, 1659). In

any event, the court issued such an instruction at the People’s

request following the close of evidence and during the jury charge. 

We have considered the remaining instances of alleged cumulative error

and conclude that they are without merit. The sentence is not unduly

harsh or severe.

Entered: June 8, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SGI
International's Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 1999, and is
qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                       0000737955
<NAME>                                      SGI International
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  0
       
<S>                             <C>   
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.000
<CASH>                                          139,837
<SECURITIES>                                    402,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                   481,388
<ALLOWANCES>                                     84,460
<INVENTORY>                                      63,879
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              1,072,921
<PP&E>                                        1,694,325
<DEPRECIATION>                                1,023,393
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4,264,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         6,440,306
<BONDS>                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         1,035,739
<PREFERRED>                                         635
<COMMON>                                     47,209,782
<OTHER-SE>                                  (50,524,286)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4,264,551
<SALES>                                         683,508
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                701,240
<CGS>                                           476,218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   476,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              1,501,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              150,782
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (1,427,258)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (1,427,258)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (1,427,258)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.06)
        

</TABLE>