alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO.
IN THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS .
CALVIN LOUISE RUSHING VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS

FROM APPEAL NO. 12-14-00112-CR
TRIAL CAUSE NO. 2012-0431 ANGELIA COUNTY EOELVED COURTOFCRMIWAlAPPEALS 

### APR 172015

,\t—j t\ ^-^^.a^ (T^Q >;^M\3irMUvw<j>B.<ui, ^il 

### FILEDIN 

## COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS APR 1720^5 AbelAcosta,Clerk APPELLANT'S MOTION REQUESTING SUSPENSION OF TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE9.3[b]

TO THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: Comes now, Calvin Louise Rushing, hereafter styled as the, Appellant, who in accordance with Texas Rules Of Appellate Pro cedure, Rule 2, and hereby request The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals will suspend operation and/or application of the required 

### number of copies of Appellant's Pro-Se Petition For Discretionary Reviewpursuant to Texas Rule Of Appellate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b]; As Appellant will argue and show unto The Court as follows:

I. The Appellant, Calvin Louise Rushing, is a Texas Department 

### Of criminal Justice-Institutional Division inmate ,#1925565, held inconfinement at The Allen B. Polunsky Unit [3872 FM 350 South

### Livingston,Texas 77351], serving asentence of fifty[50] years.

II. The Appellant, Calvin Louise Rushing, at all times hereto mentioned during his trial before the judge and during the direct 

### appellate appeal process has been andhas remained indigent having

### executed asworn andvalid proper pauperis oathdeclaring his indigency to that effect on file in this case.

III. The Appellant as a Texas prison inmate does not receive nor 

### earn any monetary funds for his imprisonment or hard labor; And 

### neither does the Appellant as aprison inmatehas access to any copy machine nor printer to duplicate the required number of 

### copies of his Pro-Se Petition For discretionary Review; Further 

### more, Appellant is without family or friends available to copy or print up the necessary number of copies of his Pro-Se Petit ion For Discretionary Review; Therefore, Appellant request The 

### Court to 'Suspend* the rule requirement of Texas Rule OfAppe llate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b].

IV. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant, Calvin Louise Rus 

### hing, respectfullyprays The Court to Suspend-Operation- of Texas 

### Rule OfAppellate Procedure, Rule 9.3[b], towhichrelief Appell ant humbly accepts.

-2- LOUISE RUSHING TDCJ-ID# 1925565 ALLEN B. POLUNSKY UNIT 3872 FM 350 SOUTH LIVINGSTON, TEXAS 77351V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Calvin Louise Rushing, hereby certify that a copy of Motion Requesting Suspension Of Tex. R. App. Proc, Rule 9.3 

### [b], has beenmailedby U.S. Postal Service on this13th day of april , 2015, addressed to: Cathy Lusk, Clerk , 12Th Court Of Appeals 1517 WEST FRONT STREET, STE# 354 TYLER, TEXAS 75702

-3-
§ 1007.45 Nondiscrimination. ( a ) To the extent that the requirements of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d *et seq.*) or of the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.A. 3601 *et seq.*) apply to a guarantee provided under this part, nothing in the requirements concerning discrimination on the basis of race shall be construed to prevent the provision of the guarantee to an eligible entity on the basis that the entity serves Native Hawaiian families or is a Native Hawaiian family.
( b ) The equal access to HUD-assisted or -insured housing requirements in 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) apply to this part.
[67 FR 40776, June 13, 2002, as amended at 81 FR 80993, Nov. 17, 2016]
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

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

RITA BOSWORTH

Assistant Federal Public Defender

19th Floor Federal Building

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant MOORE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

GARY MOORE,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-707 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO CONTINUE HEARING

CURRENT HEARING DATE: April 22,

2010, at 2:30 p.m.

PROPOSED HEARING DATE: May 27,

2010, at 2:30 p.m.

1. Mr. Moore is currently scheduled to enter a plea and be sentenced on April 22,

2010. The parties come before the Court stipulating to continue the hearing to May 27. 

2. It recently came to defense counsel’s attention that Mr. Moore has a medical

history that may serve as a mitigating factor at his sentencing. 

3. Defense counsel has requested Mr. Moore’s medical documents but has only

received some of them. Though regular calls are being made to ensure speedy delivery, there is

no estimate on when they will be provided. 

4. Mr. Moore believes that the medical documents must be reviewed prior to

sentencing in order to give the Court a full and accurate view of his past and to ensure that all

mitigating evidence is presented. Continuing the sentencing hearing will allow defense counsel

Stip. & [Proposed] Order to Continue Hearing;

U.S. v. Moore, CR 09-707 JSW 1

Case 3:09-cr-00707-JSW Document 29 Filed 03/16/10 Page 1 of 2 Case3:09-cr-00707-JSW Document28 Filed03/16/10 Page1 of 2
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

to receive and review the records as well as conduct any further investigation that may arise as a

result of what is contained in the records. 

5. Neither government counsel nor the probation officer have any objection to

continuing the sentencing to May 27. 

6. Mr. Moore agrees that the time from April 22, 2010, to May 27, 2010, should be

excluded under the Speedy Trial Act for effective preparation of counsel. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

March 15, 2010 /s/

___________________ ________________________________

DATED RITA BOSWORTH

Assistant Federal Public Defender

March 15, 2010 /s/

___________________ ________________________________

DATED CHRISTINE WONG

Assistant United States Attorney

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________ _________________________________

DATED JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

Stip. & [Proposed] Order to Continue Hearing;

U.S. v. Moore, CR 09-707 JSW 2

Case3:09-cr-00707-JSW Document28 Filed03/16/10 Page2 of 2

March 16, 2010

Case 3:09-cr-00707-JSW Document 29 Filed 03/16/10 Page 2 of 2
Second Department,

March, 1978

(March 6, 1978)

#### Sheldon Alter, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated for the Benefit of Philipsburg Associates, Respondent, v William J. O'Hare, Appellant.

In a derivative action brought by a limited partner of a limited partnership to recover damages for breach of an escrow agreement, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered June 29, 1977, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of plaintiff. Judgment reversed, on the facts, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Trial Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. On the record presented, it is clear that defendant breached the escrow agreement. However, it is not clear what damages were suffered by the limited partnership on whose behalf this *action*was brought as a result of the breach. We, therefore, remand the action to Trial Term for a new determination as to the amount of damages, if any, sustained by the limited partnership. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Latham and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
### §5876. Comptroller General audit

(a) Section 166 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [42 U.S.C. 2206], shall be deemed to be applicable, respectively, to the nuclear and nonnuclear activities under subchapter I and to the activities under subchapter II.

(b) The Comptroller General of the United States shall audit, review, and evaluate the implementation of the provisions of subchapter II of this chapter by the Nuclear Safety and Licensing Commission not later than sixty months after the effective date of this chapter, the Comptroller General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report on his audit, which shall contain, but not be limited to—

(1) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the licensing and related regulatory activities of the Commission and the operations of the Office of Nuclear Safety Research and the Bureau of Nuclear Materials Security;

(2) an evaluation of the effect of such Commission activities on the efficiency, effectiveness, and safety with which the activities licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended [42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.], are carried out;

(3) recommendations concerning any legislation he deems necessary, and the reasons therefor, for improving the implementation of subchapter II.

(Pub. L. 93–438, title III, §306, Oct. 11, 1974, 88 Stat. 1251.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The effective date of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), is the effective date of Pub. L. 93–438. See section 312 of Pub. L. 93–438, set out as an Effective Date; Interim Appointments note under section 5801 of this title.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, referred to in subsec. (b)(2), is act Aug. 1, 1946, ch. 724, as added by act Aug. 30, 1954, ch. 1073, §1, 68 Stat. 919, which is classified principally to chapter 23 (§2011 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2011 of this title and Tables.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of certain functions from Nuclear Regulatory Commission to Chairman thereof, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1980, 45 F.R. 40561, 94 Stat. 3585, set out as a note under section 5841 of this title.
#### Attilio Mercantini, as Executor of Constance Potenza, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Elvira Innamorati, Defendant. Attilio Mercantini, as Executor of Constance Potenza, Deceased, Appellant; George Jacobs, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal from part of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated September 8, 1960, denied on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and argue or submit it at the February Term, commencing January 30, 1961; appeal ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 23, 1961. Motion by appellant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, from an order of this court entered December 19, 1960, dismissing his appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered November 1, 1960, denied. On the court’s own motion, its decision handed down December 19, 1960 *(ante,*p. 652), is amended by striking out the provision granting respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal from said order of November 1, 1960, and by substituting therefor provisions denying said motion to dismiss with leave to renew upon the argument or submission of the appeal. Said appeal is ordered on the calendar for the February Term, and it will be heard together with the appeal from the original order, dated September 8, 1960. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before January 23, 1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### Mansfield Driskell, Respondent, v. Charles Alfano, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant be ready to argue or submit the appeal at the October 1960 Term, beginning October 3, 1960, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before September 1, 1960. Beldock, Acting P. J., Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
### §5817a. Employee-suggested research projects; approval; funding; reports

(a) Any Government-owned contractor operated laboratory, energy research center, or other laboratory performing functions under contract to the Administration may, with the approval of the Administrator, use a reasonable amount of its operating budget for the funding of employee-suggested research projects up to the pilot stage of development. It shall be a condition of any such approval that the director of the laboratory or center involved form an internal review mechanism for determining which employee-suggested projects merit funding in a given fiscal year; and any such project may be funded in one or more succeeding years if the review process indicates that it merits such funding.

(b) Each director of a laboratory or center specified in subsection (a) of this section shall submit an annual report to the Administrator on projects being funded under this section; and on completion of each such project shall submit a report to the Technical Information Center of the Administration for inclusion in its data base.

(Pub. L. 95–39, title III, §303, June 3, 1977, 91 Stat. 189.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was not enacted as part of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Energy Research and Development Administration terminated and functions vested by law in Administrator thereof transferred to Secretary of Energy (unless otherwise specifically provided) by sections 7151(a) and 7293 of this title.
#### GERMAN AMERICAN BANK OF ROCHESTER v. STEIN et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 30, 1903.)

Action by the German American Bank of Rochester against Leopold Stein and others.

No opinion. Motion for reargument denied, with $10 costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied.
### §290jj–2. Regulations and enforcement

#### (a) Training

Not later than 6 months after October 17, 2000, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate State, local, public and private protection and advocacy organizations, health care professionals, social workers, facilities, and patients, shall promulgate regulations that—

(1) require States that license non-medical, community-based residential facilities for children and youth to develop licensing rules and monitoring requirements concerning behavior management practice that will ensure compliance with Federal regulations and to meet the requirements of subsection (b);

(2) require States to develop and implement such licensing rules and monitoring requirements within 1 year after the promulgation of the regulations referred to in the matter preceding paragraph (1); and

(3) support the development of national guidelines and standards on the quality, quantity, orientation and training, required under this part, as well as the certification or licensure of those staff responsible for the implementation of behavioral intervention concepts and techniques.

#### (b) Requirements

The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall require—

(1) that facilities described in subsection (a) ensure that there is an adequate number of qualified professional and supportive staff to evaluate residents, formulate written individualized, comprehensive treatment plans, and to provide active treatment measures;

(2) the provision of appropriate training and certification of the staff of such facilities in the prevention and use of physical restraint and seclusion, including the needs and behaviors of the population served, relationship building, alternatives to restraint, de-escalation methods, avoiding power struggles, thresholds for restraints, the physiological impact of restraint and seclusion, monitoring physical signs of distress and obtaining medical assistance, legal issues, position asphyxia, escape and evasion techniques, time limits for the use of restraint and seclusion, the process for obtaining approval for continued restraints and seclusion, procedures to address problematic restraints, documentation, processing with children, and follow-up with staff, and investigation of injuries and complaints; and

(3) that such facilities provide complete and accurate notification of deaths, as required under section 290jj–1(1) of this title.

#### (c) Enforcement

A State to which this part applies that fails to comply with any requirement of this part, including a failure to provide appropriate training and certification, shall not be eligible for participation in any program supported in whole or in part by funds appropriated under this chapter.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §595B, as added Pub. L. 106–310, div. B, title XXXII, §3208, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1199.)
#### In the Matter of Laura M. Starr, Respondent, v Leonard B. Starr, Appellant.

In a support proceeding pursuant to article 4 of the Family Court Act, the appeal is from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County, dated October 19, 1976, which denied the appellant husband’s motion, *inter alia,*to transfer a portion of the proceeding to the Family Court, Orange County. Permission for the taking of this appeal is hereby granted. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. In view of the circumstances presented herein, the court’s refusal to transfer the proceeding to Orange County was not an abuse of discretion. Cohalan, Acting P. J., Hawkins, Suozzi and Mollen, JJ., concur.
#### Thomas M. Hyde et al., Respondents, v Long Island Railroad Company et al., Appellants.

[717 NYS2d 231]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated May 17, 1999, as denied their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that he tripped over a pipe which was protruding from the ground on property allegedly under the control of the defendants. The defendants correctly contend that at times during his deposition, the injured plaintiff stated that he remembered nothing about the *426fall and that he never came into contact with the pipe before his fall. However, in light of the evidence in the record that the plaintiff has diminished cognitive skills as a result of the fall, we cannot conclude that his deposition testimony that he tripped over the pipe is feigned and not genuine.

The defendants contend that the protruding pipe was not a proximate cause of the injured plaintiffs fall. They rely on an affidavit submitted by the plaintiffs’ expert in a medical malpractice action entitled *Hyde v City of New York*arising- from treatment received by the injured plaintiff as a result of the same accident. In that affidavit the expert stated that the injured plaintiff would not have fallen had he been properly diagnosed with cerebral vascular disease before the date of the accident. That affidavit, however, does not preclude, as a matter of law, the possibility that there were other proximate causes of the injured plaintiffs fall, such as the protruding pipe *(see, Derdiarian v Felix Contr. Corp.,*51 NY2d 308). Indeed, it is well settled that there can be more than one proximate cause of a plaintiffs injuries *(see, Blass v Hong,*240 AD2d 187).

Under the circumstances, although the defendants made out prima facie cases for summary judgment, the plaintiffs raised triable issues of fact as to the cause of the injured plaintiffs fall, and the defendants’ respective motions for summary judgment were properly denied *(see, Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and McGinity, JJ., concur.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsEvaluation of non-intrusive flow measurement techniques for a re-entry flight experimentThis study evaluates various non-intrusive techniques for the measurement of the flow field on the windward side of the Space Shuttle orbiter or a similar reentry vehicle. Included are linear (Rayleigh, Raman, Mie, Laser Doppler Velocimetry, Resonant Doppler Velocimetry) and nonlinear (Coherent Anti-Stokes Raman, Laser-Induced Fluorescence) light scattering, electron-beam fluorescence, thermal emission, and mass spectroscopy. Flow-field properties were taken from a nonequilibrium flow model by Shinn, Moss, and Simmonds at the NASA Langley Research Center. Conclusions are, when possible, based on quantitative scaling of known laboratory results to the conditions projected. Detailed discussion with researchers in the field contributed further to these conclusions and provided valuable insights regarding the experimental feasibility of each of the techniques.Document ID19840005144Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsMiles, R. B.*(Princeton Resources Inc., NJ, United States)*Santavicca, D. A.*(Princeton Resources Inc., NJ, United States)*Zimmermann, M.*(Princeton Resources Inc., NJ, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 4, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1983Subject CategoryLaunch Vehicles And Space VehiclesReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-172142NAS 1.26:172142Accession Number84N13212Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NCC1-64Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19840005144.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUTODESK, INC., a Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DASSAULT SYSTÈMES SOLIDWORKS

CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 08-04397 WHA

JOINT CONSENT JUDGMENT

At the joint request of the parties, the Court enters this Consent Judgment:

1. In this action, Plaintiff Autodesk, Inc. (“Autodesk”) sued Dassault Systèmes

SolidWorks Corp. (“SolidWorks”), asserting various claims of trademark infringement, false

designation of origin, unfair competition, and false advertising. The operative complaint is the

First Amended Complaint, filed January 23, 2009 (the “FAC”). SolidWorks filed an Answer and

Counterclaims to the FAC, and as a second claim for relief, sought a declaration concerning the

validity or ownership of the letter string “DWG.”

2. The parties stipulate that the letter string “DWG” is a valid trademark owned by

Autodesk for computer-aided design (CAD) software and related services, as alleged by Autodesk

in the FAC. Based on that stipulation, the Court will enforce the stipulation between the parties

without adjudicating the issue on the merits.

Case 3:08-cv-04397-WHA Document 248 Filed 01/05/10 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

3. All other claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice, including Autodesk’s

claim that SolidWorks has engaged in false advertising or unfair competition. For the avoidance

of doubt, the dismissal of a claim under this paragraph shall not be deemed an adjudication of the

merits of such claim.

4. Each side shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated: January 5, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:08-cv-04397-WHA Document 248 Filed 01/05/10 Page 2 of 2