alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-20-00041-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE

BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION

OF W.L.R.

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 145TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This accelerated appeal is being dismissed for want of prosecution.1 See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.3(b). The Harris Center for Mental Health & IDD filed a notice of appeal from an order for 

outpatient or community-based treatment and supervision. The clerk’s record was filed on 

February 11, 2020 and the reporter’s record was filed on February 25. The Harris Center’s brief 

was due on or before March 16. On March 16, the Harris Center filed a motion for extension of 

time, which this Court granted to April 6. On April 6, the Harris Center filed another motion for 

extension of time, which this Court granted to April 13, but ordered that no further extensions 

would be entertained. The order granting the extension warned that failure to file the brief by the 

extended deadline may result in the case being referred to the court for dismissal. The April 13 

deadline expired without the Harris Center filing a brief.

When an appellant fails to timely file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution, unless the appellant reasonably explains the failure and the appellee is not 

significantly injured by the appellant’s failure to timely file a brief. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

Here, the Harris Center failed to file a brief by the extended deadline. Nor has this Court received 

a late brief accompanied by a motion for leave to file late brief. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). 

1 See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 574.070 (West 2017); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.1.
2

Opinion delivered April 22, 2020.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

APRIL 22, 2020

NO. 12-20-00041-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST

INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF W.L.R.

Appeal from the 145th District Court 

of Nacogdoches County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F1924026)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it 

is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of prosecution; and that this decision be certified to 

the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[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).
**Title:****Light list. Volume VII, Great Lakes,Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River above the St. Regis River.
 
2003 | 2004| 2005 | 2006| 2007 | 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015| 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019
2020 | 2021
 
SuDoc Number:HS 7.22:V.7/
Item Number:0520-L-07 (online)
CGP System Number:000609085
 
 
 
** 
**Permanent Public Access
** 
Title 44 of  the United States Code (44 U.S.C. Section 1911) stipulates that public access  to official Government information products disseminated through the Federal  Depository Library Program (FDLP) must be maintained permanently in regional  depository libraries and by depository libraries not served by a regional  library. Since online products are not physically distributed to depository  libraries for retention, GPO has assumed responsibility for the provision of  permanent access to Government information products residing on FDsys  servers.
GPO's  permanent public access commitment is also met by bringing  agency-disseminated Internet resources under the purview of GPO and  incorporating them into a digital archive. GPO captures copies of agency  electronic information products, and creates PURLs so that users will be  automatically redirected to the archived products if the information is no  longer accessible on the agency Web site. Please refer to the report Managing  the FDLP Electronic Collection: A Policy and Planning Document for more  information.
 
August 7, 2017********
###### Editorial Note on Part 3282

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3282 appear at 78 FR 60199, Oct. 1, 2013.

#### § 3282.51 Scope.

This subpart contains rules of procedure generally applicable to the transaction of official business under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act, including the rules governing public availability of information.
Order filed July 19, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14 - 18 - 00374 - CR (trial court cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 100359) NO. 14 - 18 - 00375 - CR (trial court cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 100360) NO. 14 - 18 - 00376 - CR (trial court cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 100361) NO. 14 - 18 - 00377 - CR (trial court cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 100362) NO. 14 - 18 - 00378 - CR (trial court cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 100363) NO. 14 - 18 - 00379 - CR (trial court cause numb er D - 1 - DC - 16 - 301894) NO. 14 - 18 - 00380 - CR (trial cou rt cause number D - 1 - DC - 16 - 301895)

____________ CRAIG JUBY , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 427th District Court

Travis County, Texas 

### ORDER The reporter’ s record in these appeals were due June 18, 2018. We did not receive the record or a request for an exten sion of time to file the record

. Accordingly, on June 19, 2018, we ordered the official court reporter, NicoleEdwards, to file the reporter’ s record by July 5 , 2018. Neither the record nor a

request for an extension of time to file the record has been filed. Accordingly, we order the official court reporter, Nicole Edwards, to file the reporter’s record by August 3, 2018

. The trial a nd appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Edwards does not timely file the record, we will issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the record. PER CURIAM
Editorial Note on Part 30
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 30 appear at 87 FR 8197, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 30.60 Dealers or sponsored third-party originators. ( a ) *General.* The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, or his or her designee, may initiate a civil money penalty action against any dealer or sponsored third-party originator that violates section 2(b)(7) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1703). Such violations include, but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Falsifying information on an application for dealer approval or reapproval submitted to a lender;
( 2 ) Falsifying statements on a HUD credit application, improvement contract, note, security instrument, completion certificate, or other loan document;
( 3 ) Failing to sign a credit application if the dealer or sponsored third-party originator assisted the borrower in completing the application;
( 4 ) Falsely certifying to a lender that the loan proceeds have been or will be spent on eligible improvements;
( 5 ) Falsely certifying to a lender that the property improvements have been completed;
( 6 ) Falsely certifying that a borrower has not been given or promised any cash payment, rebate, cash bonus, or anything of more than nominal value as an inducement to enter into a loan transaction;
( 7 ) Making a false representation to a lender with respect to the creditworthiness of a borrower or the eligibility of the improvements for which a loan is sought.
( b ) *Continuing violation.* Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate violation.
( c ) *Amount of penalty.* The maximum penalty is $12,249 for each violation, up to a limit for any particular person of $2,449,575 during any one-year period.
[61 FR 50215, Sept. 24, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 12788, Mar. 17, 2003; 72 FR 5588, Feb. 6, 2007; 77 FR 51467, Aug. 24, 2012; 78 FR 4059, Jan. 18, 2013; 81 FR 38935, June 15, 2016; 82 FR 24524, May 30, 2017; 83 FR 32793, July 16, 2018; 84 FR 9453, Mar. 15, 2019; 85 FR 13044, Mar. 6, 2020; 86 FR 14373, Mar. 16, 2021; 87 FR 24420, Apr. 26, 2022; 88 FR 9748, Feb. 15, 2023; 89 FR 13616, Feb. 23, 2024]
#### Pamela J. Washington, Appellant, v Rochwil Associates, Formerly Designated Wilmorite Inc. or “X,” an Unknown Entity Who is the Owner of the Sibley Tower Bldg. in Rochester, New York, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[832 NYS2d 853]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Matthew A. Rosenbaum, J.), entered April 11, 2006 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motions of defendants Rochwil Associates, formerly designated Wilmorite Inc. or “X,” an unknown entity who is the owner of the Sibley Tower Bldg, in Rochester, New York, and Millar Elevator Service Co., formerly designated as “Z,” an unknown entity who serviced these elevators during the period complained of, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against them and denied plaintiffs motion to compel discovery.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs. Present—Gorski, J.P, Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.
#### HART v. BASS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 10, 1905.)

Action by Samuel J. Hart against Hannah Bass and others. L. Wertlu. íer, for appellants. A. Engel, for respondent. No opinion. Órder affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
#### § 3285.314 [Reserved]
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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONCEPTUS, INC.,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

HOLOGIC, INC.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

Case No. C09-02280 WHA (JCS)

ORDER TO SUBMIT SETTLEMENT

CONFERENCE STATEMENTS IN .PDF

FORMAT

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that in addition to the submission of paper copy of settlement

conference statements to chambers, each party shall submit their confidential settlement conference

statements in .pdf format and email their statement to JCSPO@cand.uscourts.gov.

All other provisions of this Court's original Notice and Settlement Conference Order remain

in effect.

Dated: February 8, 2010

_______________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-02280-WHA Document 153 Filed 02/08/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Uffie Wieties, appellee, v. James C. Davis, director general of railroads, operating Illinois Central Railroad, appellant.

Suit for damages for destruction of automobile on railroad crossing, by train. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. E. S. Smith, Judge, presiding. *673Heard in this court at the October term, 1922.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 23, 1923.

Graham & Graham, for appellant; John G. Drennan, of counsel. Andrus, Trutter & Crow, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Niehaus

delivered the opinion of the court.
Exhibit 15.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the following Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-173157) pertaining to the Stock Related Award Incentive Plan of 1999 and the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan of SouFun Holdings
Limited, and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | Registration Statement (Amendment No. 2 to Form F-3 No. 333-181407) of SouFun Holdings Limited
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated April 3, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of SouFun Holdings Limited, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of SouFun Holdings
Limited, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2012.

/s/ Ernst & Young Hua Ming LLP

Shenzhen, Peoples Republic of China

April 3, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         316,700
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,153,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,902,700
<PP&E>                                         631,800
<DEPRECIATION>                                 124,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,037,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,376,700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,231,600
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,037,400
<SALES>                                        707,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               707,400
<CGS>                                          108,900
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,742,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,023,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,023,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,023,700)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
#### § 245.5 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to recognize the importance and benefits of cooperation and participation of tenants in creating a suitable living environment in multifamily housing projects and in contributing to the successful operation of such projects, including their good physical condition, proper maintenance, security, energy efficiency, and control of operating costs.

[50 FR 32402, Aug. 12, 1985]
S

-1-STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER

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

SCOTT S. FURSTMAN, Cal. Bar No. 76476

LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT S. FURSTMAN

510 North Third Street

San Jose, California 95112

Telephone: 408-292-4132

Facsimile: 408-292-4162

sfurstman@sbcglobal.net

Attorneys for Defendants

SS PACIFIC STAR; INTERNATIONAL

DATA SECURITY, INC.; and INTERNATIONAL

MARITIME SECURITY ALLIANCE, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ESCO MARINE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SS PACIFIC STAR, (ex-ARTSHIP, exGOLDEN BEAR), her engines, tackle,

equipment, appurtenances, freights, cargo, etc.

(Official Number 239932) in rem,

INTERNATIONAL DATA SECURITY,

INC., a Delaware corporate entity; and

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY

ALLIANCE, LLC., a Delaware corporate

entity,

Defendants.

Case No. CV 08 05575 SI

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties, through their respective undersigned counsel of record, stipulate that the Case

Management Conference presently set for July 9, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. may be continued to July 23,

2010 at 3:00 p.m. The parties believe that additional time may assist in narrowing issues to be

addressed at the Case Management Conference including the Counter Claim and further

developments following meetings with the EPA.

//

Case 3:08-cv-05575-SI Document 63 Filed 07/09/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER

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

It is so stipulated.

Dated: July 8, 2010____ LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT S. FURSTMAN

By /s/ Scott S. Furstman

SCOTT S. FURSTMAN

Attorney for Defendants SS PACIFIC STAR;

INTERNATIONAL DATA SECURITY, INC.;

and INTERNATIONAL MARITIME

SECURITY ALLIANCE

Dated: July 8, 2010 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC

/s/ Norman J. Ronneberg, Jr.

By ___________________________________

NORMAN J. RONNEBERG, JR.

Attorneys for Plaintiff ESCO MARINE, INC.

[Proposed] Order

Good cause appearing and the parties having stipulated thereto, it is ordered that the Case

Management Conference presently set for July 9, 2010 is continued to July 23, 2010 at 3:00

p.m.

Dated: July , 2010

_________________________________

Susan Illston, U. S. District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-05575-SI Document 63 Filed 07/09/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 15.109 Appeals. ( a ) *In general.* A requester may appeal an adverse determination denying a request, in any respect, in writing. The letter of appeal should clearly identify the determination that is being appealed and the assigned tracking number. The appeal letter and envelope should be marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal” for the quickest possible handling. If mailed, the requester's letter of appeal must be postmarked within 90 calendar days of the date of HUD's letter of determination. If the letter of appeal is transmitted electronically or by a means other than the United States Postal Service, it must be received in the appropriate office by the close of business on the 30th calendar day after the date of HUD's letter of determination.
( b ) *Time frames* — ( 1 ) Expedited processing. HUD will decide an appeal of a denial of a request to expedite processing of a FOIA request within 10 working days of receipt of the appeal.
( 2 ) *All other appeals.* HUD will make a determination on appeals within 20 working days of receipt, unless unusual circumstances require HUD to extend the time for an additional 10 working days.
( 3 ) *Exceptions.* An appeal ordinarily will not be acted upon if the subject of the appeal is simultaneously being litigated in an applicable Federal court.
( c ) *Content of appeals.* An appeal letter should include the following: ( 1 ) A copy of the original request;
( 2 ) A copy of the adverse determination;
( 3 ) A statement of facts and legal arguments supporting the appeal; and
( 4 ) Any additional information the appellant wishes to include.
( d ) *When appeal is required.* Before seeking a court review of HUD's adverse determination, a requester generally must have exhausted their administrative remedies.
[80 FR 49145, Aug. 17, 2015 as amended at 82 FR 21695, May 10, 2017]
1 

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 

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN BURRIS 

JOHN L. BURRIS, ESQ (SBN 69888) 

STEVEN R. YOURKE (SBN 118506) 

7677 Oakport St., Suite 1120 

Oakland, CA 94621 

Phone: (510) 839-5200 

Fax: (510) 839-3882 

Email: steven.yourke@johnburrislaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TIMOTHY MITCHELL, SR., et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CITY OF PITTSBURG, et al. 

 Defendants. 

 

CASE NO.: CV 09 - 0794 SI 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE 

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE & 

EXTEND TIME FOR EXPERT 

DISLOURE PER RULE 26 & 

PROPOSED ORDER 

The parties to this action by and through their respective counsel do hereby 

stipulate that the settlement conference presently scheduled for May 3, 2010 be taken 

off calendar and that the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses be extended 60 

days, from April 30, 2010 until June 30, 2010. 

Good cause exists for taking the settlement conference off calendar and for 

extending the time for disclosing experts, to wit, Plaintiff intends to move the Court to 

be allowed to add two new defendants. 'HIHQGDQWVZLOOQRWRSSRVHSODLQWLII¶VPRWLRQ

to amend the complaint to add such new defendants. Settlement of this action will not 

be feasible until all defendants are before the Court. The deadline for disclosing 

expert witnesses is presently set for April 30, 2010. Such deadline should be extended 

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 44 Filed 04/27/10 Page 1 of 2
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 

27 

28 

for 60 days in order to allow the parties to depose the anticipated new defendants 

before disclosing experts. 

Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN BURRIS 

_________________________ 

Steven R. Yourke, Esq. 

Attorney for all plaintiffs 

 EDRINGTON, SCHIRNER & MURPHY 

 ___________________________ 

 JAMES MARZAN 

 Attorney for all Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The settlement conference presently set in this action for May 3, 2010 is hereby 

cancelled. 

The deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses pursuant to Rule 26 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is hereby extended until June 30, 2010. 

 __________________________ 

 Hon. Susan Illston, 

 United States District Court 

Case 3:09-cv-00794-SI Document 44 Filed 04/27/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 241.1220 Termination of insurance benefits. All of the provisions of § 207.253a of this chapter apply to subpart F of this part, except that the following shall also constitute grounds for terminating the contract of insurance: ( a ) The failure of the lender to notify the Commissioner in a timely manner of a foreclosure action initiated by the holder of the senior insured mortgage; and
( b ) The failure of the lender when directed by the Commissioner to assign the equity or acquisition loan or bid an amount necessary to acquire title to the project and convey the project to the Commissioner, in accordance with § 241.1210.
#### HIRSHBACH v. KETCHUM.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 6, 1903.)

Action by Simon Hirshbach against Alexander P. Ketchum.

No opinion. Motion dismissed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3065

To extend the aviation war risk insurance program for 3 years. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2005

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL

To extend the aviation war risk insurance program for 3 

years.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AIRLINE WAR RISK POLICIES 

4 AND TERRORISM COVERAGE. 

5 (a) EXTENSION OF POLICIES.—Section 44302(f)(1) 

6 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘August 31, 2005, and shall extend through December 31, 

8 2005,’’ in paragraph (1) and inserting ‘‘August 31, 2008, 

9 and shall extend through December 31, 2008,’’. 

10 (b) EXTENSION OF TERRORISM COVERAGE.—Section 

11 44303(b) of title 49, United States Code, is amended by 
2

•HR 3065 IH 

1 striking ‘‘December 31, 2005,’’ and inserting ‘‘December 

2 31, 2008,’’.

Æ
#### In re BRISTOL.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

In the matter of the application of Warren H. Bristol for admission to the bar. No opinion. Application granted.
#### § 3280.10 Use of alternative construction.

Requests for alternative construction can be made pursuant to 24 CFR 3282.14 of this chapter.

[58 FR 55003, Oct. 25, 1993]