alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Lucretia Imparato et al., Respondents, v Allen Martel, Appellant, and Rolando Alvarez, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered July 22, 1976, after jury trial, which awarded $65,000 to the plaintiff Lucretia Imparato and $3,000 to the plaintiff Thomas Imparato against defendant Allen Martel, and dismissed the cross complaint of defendant Martel against the defendant Rolando Alvarez, unanimously affirmed, with separate bills of $60 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs-respondents and defendant-respondent. Examination of the record discloses that the trial court in this rear-end collision case was correct in dismissing the complaint and cross complaint as against the defendant Rolando Alvarez. By no rational process could a finding of negligence on the part of *745Alvarez be made on the evidence presented. Sufficient evidence was adduced upon which the jury as finders of fact could conclude that both the Imparato and Alvarez vehicles were stopped when the Martel vehicle collided with that of Alvarez, pushing it into the Imparato vehicle. Further, there was sufficient evidence proffered by the plaintiffs to support the conclusion that •plaintiff Lucretia Imparato suffered a fracture of the first cervical vertebra with attendant sequelae as opposed to defendant Martel’s contention that she merely sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing congenital condition. The verdict as to liability and damages has a rational basis in the record and nothing has been demonstrated on this appeal warranting departure therefrom. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Lane and Lynch, JJ.
#### § 1506.36 Under what circumstances may USADF suspend collection actions?

USADF may suspend or terminate the Agency's collection actions on a debt where the outstanding debt principal does not exceed $100,000. Unless otherwise provided by DOJ regulations, USADF must refer all requests for suspension of debt exceeding $100,000 to the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, for approval. If prior to referral to DOJ, USADF determines that a debt is plainly erroneous or clearly without legal merit, the Agency may terminate collection activity regardless of the amount involved without obtaining DOJ concurrence. USADF may waive the assessment of interest, penalty charges and administrative costs during the period of the suspension. Suspension will be for an estimated time period and generally will be reviewed at least every six months to ensure the continued propriety of the suspension.
Opinion issued August 29, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00032-CV

———————————

IRON OAK, INC., Appellant

V.

JOHN T. PRESTON AND MICHAEL EUGENE PORTER, Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2020-23705

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Iron Oak, Inc. is attempting to appeal from the trial court’s 

January 18, 2022 order disbursing escrow funds and staying proceedings pending 

judgment in certain litigation in the State of New York. This January 18, 2022 

order was also the subject of a petition for writ of mandamus filed in case number 
2

01-22-00170-CV. In the mandamus case, real parties in interest (appellees in this 

appeal) filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the mandamus case was moot 

because the trial court had withdrawn the January 18, 2022 order.

On July 6, 2022, this Court issued a notice that this appeal might be 

dismissed as moot because the order appealed had been withdrawn by the trial 

court and we invited the parties to file a response by July 17, 2023 establishing that 

the appeal is not moot. No responses were filed.

A case becomes moot if there is no longer a justiciable controversy between 

the parties. See Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012). 

“To constitute a justiciable controversy, there must exist a real and substantial 

controversy involving a genuine conflict of tangible interests and not merely a 

theoretical dispute.” Save Our Springs Alliance v. City of Austin, 149 S.W.3d 674, 

681 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.). Because the trial court has withdrawn the 

order appealed in this case, there is no longer a justiciable controversy between the 

parties and therefore, the appeal is moot and we must dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. See Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending 

motions are also dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
§ 1506.9 What does a collection action entail? ( a ) The Agency will undertake prompt action to collect all debts owed to the United States arising out of USADF activities and to reduce debt delinquencies. A collection action may include sending a written notice in the form of a Bill for Collection or demand letter to the debtor's last known address. When necessary to protect the Government's interest (for example, to prevent the running of a statute of limitations), a written demand may be preceded by other appropriate actions under the Federal Claims Collection Standards, including the immediate referral to DOJ for litigation or collection by salary offset. The CFO may contact the debtor by telephone, in person and/or in writing to demand prompt payment, to discuss the debtor's position regarding the existence, amount or repayment of the debt, to inform the debtor of its rights (*e.g.,* to apply for a waiver of indebtedness or to request an administrative review) and of the basis for the debt and the consequences of nonpayment or delay in payment.
( b ) The CFO will maintain an administrative file for each claim. The administrative file will document the basis for the debt, all administrative collection actions regarding the debt (including communications to and from the debtor) and the final disposition of the debt. Information on an individual debtor may be disclosed only for purposes consistent with this Part, the Privacy Act of 1974, and other applicable law.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-196

_____________________________

ZAIRON JARQUIS FUSSELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

December 19, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Joseph A. Costello of the Costello Law, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for 

Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4339 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4339

   To amend the Wagner-Peyser Act to include the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands in the employment services provided under that 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2012

  Mr. Sablan (for himself, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Hinojosa, and Ms. Norton) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Wagner-Peyser Act to include the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands in the employment services provided under that 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. INCLUSION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA 
              ISLANDS IN THE WAGNER-PEYSER ACT.

    The Wagner-Peyser Act is amended--
            (1) in section 2(5) (29 U.S.C. 49a(5)), by inserting ``the 
        Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,'' after 
        ``Guam,'';
            (2) in section 5(b)(1) (29 U.S.C. 49d(b)(1)), by inserting 
        ``and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands'' after 
        ``Guam''; and
            (3) in section 6(a) (29 U.S.C. 49e(a))--
                    (A) by striking ``allot to Guam'' and inserting 
                ``allot to--
            ``(1) Guam'';
                    (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting 
                ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands an 
        amount which, in relation to the total amount available for the 
        fiscal year, is equal to the allotment percentage that Guam 
        received of amounts available under this Act in fiscal year 
        1983.''.
                                 <all>
```
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****The Department of Commerceannual program performance report.**
 
Tableof Contents
**Secretary'sForeword
**ExecutiveSummary
FY1999 Performance by Bureau
EconomicDevelopment Administration
Economics andStatistics Administration
[if !supportLists]>o  [endif]>Bureauof Economic Analysis
[if !supportLists]>o  [endif]>Bureauof the Census
International TradeAdministration
Bureau of ExportAdministration
Minority BusinessDevelopment Agency
National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration
Patent andTrademark Office
TechnologyAdministration
[if !supportLists]>o  [endif]>NationalInstitute of Standards and Technology
[if !supportLists]>o  [endif]>UnderSecretary / Office of Technology Policy
[if !supportLists]>o  [endif]>NationalTechnical Information Service
NationalTelecommunications and Information Administration
 
**MeetingManagement Challenges
Appendices
Appendix 1 - FY1999 Goals and Measures by Bureau
Appendix 2 -Comparison of Goals and Measures between FY 1999 APPR and the FY 2000 APP
Appendix 3 -Aggregate Scoring for each Measure by Bureau
 
SuDoc Number:C 1.2:P 41/3/
Item Number:0128 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001103431
 
August 1, 2019******
§ 1506.15 Does USADF contract with other agencies for collection services? ( a ) USADF has entered into a cross-servicing agreement with the Bureau of Fiscal Services (BFS) of the Department of Treasury. BFS will take appropriate action to collect and/or compromise transferred debts in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. BFS may take any of the following collection actions on behalf of USADF: ( 1 ) Send demand letters on U.S. Treasury letterhead and telephone debtors;
( 2 ) Refer accounts to credit bureaus;
( 3 ) Purchase credit reports to assist in the collection effort;
( 4 ) Refer accounts for offset, including tax refund, Federal employee salary, administrative wage garnishment, and general administrative offset under the Treasury Offset Program;
( 5 ) Refer accounts to private collection agencies;
( 6 ) Refer accounts to the Department of Justice for litigation;
( 7 ) Report written off or discharged debt to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the appropriate Form 1099;
( 8 ) Take any additional steps necessary to enforce recovery; and
( 9 ) Terminate collection action, as appropriate.
( b ) BFS will maintain records on debt transferred to it, assure that accounts are updated as necessary, and modify its delinquent debt and debtor records with information obtained from its skip tracking and asset-location services as appropriate. In the event that a referred debtor disputes the validity of a debt or any terms and conditions related to any debt not reduced by judgment, BFS may return the disputed debt to USADF for its determination of debt validity.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, October 13, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, October 13, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17A0415. ZADEH HOSSEIN et al. v. WAYMOND MORGAN.

Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW 

THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion is hereby GRANTED.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN FRANK BALLARD,

Petitioner,

 v.

ROBERT AYERS, JR., Warden,

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 08-2550 MMC (PR)

ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO

FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

On May 20, 2008, petitioner, a California prisoner incarcerated at San Quentin State

Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a 2007 decision by the California Board of Prison

Hearings (“Board”) to deny petitioner parole. Respondent has filed an answer to the petition

and petitioner has filed a traverse.

A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit addresses important issues relating to federal

review of parole decisions. See Hayward v Marshall, No. 06-55392, 2010 WL 1664977 (9th

Cir. April 22, 2010) (en banc). Consequently, the parties will be directed to file

supplemental briefs setting forth their respective views as to the effect, if any, of the

Hayward en banc decision on the Court’s determination of the instant petition.

Case 3:08-cv-02550-MMC Document 13 Filed 05/20/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

Accordingly, the Court hereby sets the following briefing schedule:

1. No later than ten days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall send to

petitioner a copy of the Hayward en banc decision. 

2. No later than twenty days from the date this order is filed, respondent shall file

and serve on petitioner a supplemental brief addressing the impact of Hayward on the instant

action. 

3. No later than twenty days from the date respondent’s supplemental brief is

filed, petitioner shall file and serve on respondent either a supplemental brief addressing the

impact of Hayward on the instant action or a notice that he does not intend to file such a

brief.

4. The parties’ respective supplemental briefs shall not exceed fifteen pages in length.

5. The matter will be deemed submitted on the date petitioner’s supplemental brief is

due. No extensions of time will be granted to file the supplemental briefs absent a showing

of exceptional circumstances. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 20, 2010 _________________________ MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02550-MMC Document 13 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2
* 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 under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 96-20434 Summary Calendar

_____________________ RICHARD BUTLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; HARRIS COUNTY JUVENILE

PROBATION DEPARTMENT,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-94-2476)

_________________________________________________________________ August 26, 1997 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Richard Butler appeals from the judgment as a matter of law in
favor of Harris County and his former employer, the Harris County

Juvenile Probation Department, on his claim that, for filing a
grievance reporting suspected violations of the law, he was
discharged in violation of the Texas Whistleblower’s Act.- 2 -

Butler did not satisfy his burden of providing a complete
transcript of the trial. S ee Great Plains Equipment, Inc. v. Koch

Gatherin g Systems, Inc. , 45 F.3d 962, 965-66 (5th Cir. 1995).

Nevertheless, we have reviewed the portions provided, along with

the briefs and the remainder of the record, and conclud e that no

reasonable juror could have found either that Butler was discharged
because he reported, in good faith, a suspected violation of law,

or that he would not have been terminated had he not filed a
grievance. S ee F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 50(a); Conkling v. Tur ner , 18 F.3d

1285, 1300 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, the district court did not err by setting aside

the jury verdict in favor of Butler and granting the defendants’
motion for judgment as a matter of law. Butler v. Harris County,

et al. , No. CA-H-94-2476 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 1996) (unpublished).

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of Gene Ira Esser, an Attorney, Respondent. Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Petitioner.

First Department,

July 28, 1977

*James D. Porter, Jr.,*for petitioner.

*Per Curiam.*

Respondent was admitted to the Bar in the Second Department on December 18, 1963.

On December 27, 1976, respondent was convicted of the crime of attempted grand larceny in the second degree by his plea of guilty to that charge in satisfaction of the Superior Court Information filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York (No. 4913-76) on December 27, 1976. He was thereafter sentenced to a term of imprisonment of one year.

The crime of attempted grand larceny in the second degree is a class E felony (Penal Law, §§ 110.05; 155.35).

Petitioner the Association of the Bar of the City of New York by petition seeks to have respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys. Such action is mandatory (Judiciary Law, § 90, subd 4).

The petition is granted and respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Birns and Capozzoli, JJ., concur.

Respondent’s name struck from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

March 8, 2011 

0228 

Order 

 

March 8, 2011 

142043 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142043 

 COA: 292567 

Wayne CC: 08-017412-FH 

REGINALD TIGGLE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
§ 1502.2 Definitions. As used in this part, the following words have the meanings set forth below: ( a ) *Act* means the Act of June 5, 1967, sometimes referred to as the “Freedom of Information Act” or the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, Public Law 90-23, 81 Stat. 54, codified at 5 U.S.C. 552.
( b ) *Foundation* means the United States African Development Foundation.
( c ) *President* means the President of the Foundation.
( d ) *Record(s)* includes all books, papers, or other documentary materials made or received by the Foundation in connection with the transaction of its business which have been preserved or are appropriate for preservation by the Foundation as evidence of its organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities, or because of the informational value of the data contained therein. Library or other material acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, and stocks of publications and other documents provided by the Foundation to the public in the normal course of doing business are not included within the definition of the word “records.” The latter will continue to be made available to the public without charge.
```

[115th Congress Public Law 386]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 132 STAT. 5161]]

Public Law 115-386
115th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to extend through 
 2023 the authority of the Federal Election Commission to impose civil 
money penalties on the basis of a schedule of penalties established and 
  published by the Commission. <<NOTE: Dec. 21, 2018 -  [H.R. 7120]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AUTHORITY OF 
                              FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH 
                              2023.

    (a) Extension of Authority.--Section 309(a)(4)(C)(v) of the Federal 
Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30109(a)(4)(C)(v)) is amended 
by striking ``December 31, 2018'' and inserting ``December 31, 2023''.
    (b) <<NOTE: 52 USC 30109 note.>>  Effective Date.--The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the earlier of--
            (1) December 31, 2018; or
            (2) the date of the enactment of this Act.

    Approved December 21, 2018.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 7120:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 164 (2018):
            Nov. 27, considered and passed House.
            Dec. 12, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### § 134.2 When the Act applies.

The Act applies to any adversary adjudication pending before the Department of State at any time between October 1, 1981 and September 30, 1984. This includes proceedings begun before October 1, 1981 if final agency action has not been taken before that date, and proceedings pending on September 30, 1984, regardless of when they were initiated or when final agency action occurs.