alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-19-00349-CV 

IN THE ESTATE OF WANDA GAIL BETTS LAYFIELD, DECEASED 

 

On Appeal from the County Court1 

Navarro County, Texas 

Trial Court No. P18839, Honorable Amanda D. Putman, Presiding 

 

December 20, 2019 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. 

Appellant Ricky Layfield filed a notice of appeal, pro se, from the trial court’s 

judgment declaring heirship and order appointing appellee Christian Betts as 

administrator of the estate of Wanda Gail Betts Layfield. Ricky also appeals from the 

“Proof of Death and Other Facts” filed by Christian in the trial court. We dismiss the 

purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the 

Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 

2013).
2

Wanda died in 2018. In January of 2019, Christian filed an application to determine 

heirship and an application for letters of administration. The trial court held a hearing on 

the applications in March of 2019. Following the hearing, Ricky filed a motion for new 

trial. The trial court did not rule on Christian’s applications until August 30, 2019, when 

the court signed the judgment declaring heirship and order issuing letters of 

administration. Ricky timely filed this appeal. However, on October 18, 2019, the trial 

court granted Ricky’s motion for new trial on both applications within its plenary power. 

TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (c), (e).

We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an 

interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 

1998) (per curiam). When a trial court grants a motion for new trial, the court’s original 

judgment or order is vacated and the case proceeds as if there had been no trial. 

Markowitz v. Markowitz, 118 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. 

denied). Thus, an order granting a new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction 

over an appeal. In re K.F., No. 07-08-00102-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 2068, at *2 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo Mar. 19, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Boris v. Boris, 642 S.W.2d 855, 

856 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1982, no writ)).

By letter of October 29, 2019, we notified the parties that it did not appear we had 

jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court granted a new trial. The letter also 

advised that the “Proof of Death and Other Facts” filed by Christian was not a judgment 

or order of the trial court. We directed the parties to show how we had jurisdiction over 
3

the appeal by November 8, or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

Neither party responded to our letter.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude we are without jurisdiction to 

review the appeal and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

Per Curiam
### §80111. Liability for delivery of goods

(a) General Rules.—A common carrier is liable for damages to a person having title to, or right to possession of, goods when—

(1) the carrier delivers the goods to a person not entitled to their possession unless the delivery is authorized under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title;

(2) the carrier makes a delivery under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title after being requested by or for a person having title to, or right to possession of, the goods not to make the delivery; or

(3) at the time of delivery under section 80110(b)(2) or (3) of this title, the carrier has information it is delivering the goods to a person not entitled to their possession.

(b) Effectiveness of Request or Information.—A request or information is effective under subsection (a)(2) or (3) of this section only if—

(1) an officer or agent of the carrier, whose actual or apparent authority includes acting on the request or information, has been given the request or information; and

(2) the officer or agent has had time, exercising reasonable diligence, to stop delivery of the goods.

(c) Failure To Take and Cancel Bills.—Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, if a common carrier delivers goods for which a negotiable bill of lading has been issued without taking and canceling the bill, the carrier is liable for damages for failure to deliver the goods to a person purchasing the bill for value in good faith whether the purchase was before or after delivery and even when delivery was made to the person entitled to the goods. The carrier also is liable under this paragraph if part of the goods are delivered without taking and canceling the bill or plainly noting on the bill that a partial delivery was made and generally describing the goods or the remaining goods kept by the carrier.

(d) Exceptions to Liability.—A common carrier is not liable for failure to deliver goods to the consignee or owner of the goods or a holder of the bill if—

(1) a delivery described in subsection (c) of this section was compelled by legal process;

(2) the goods have been sold lawfully to satisfy the carrier's lien;

(3) the goods have not been claimed; or

(4) the goods are perishable or hazardous.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1350.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 80111(a) | 49 App.:90 (less last par.). | Aug. 29, 1916, ch. 415, §§10–12, 26, 39 Stat. 540, 542. |
| 80111(b) | 49 App.:90 (last par.). | |
| 80111(c) | 49 App.:91 (words after 2d comma). | |
| | 49 App.:92 (words after 2d comma). | |
| 80111(d) | 49 App.:91 (words before 2d comma). | |
| | 49 App.:92 (words before 2d comma). | |
| | 49 App.:106. | |

Section

In subsection (a), before clause (1), the word "title" is substituted for "right of property" for consistency in this chapter.

In subsection (c), the words "negotiable bill of lading" are substituted for "order bill . . . the negotiation of which would transfer the right to the possession of the goods" in 49 App.:91 for consistency in this chapter.
### §1406l. Effective date

This subchapter shall take effect June 22, 1936, but until its provisions shall severally become operative as herein provided, the corresponding legislative, executive, and judicial functions of the existing government shall continue to be exercised as now provided by law or ordinance, and the present incumbents of all offices under the Government of the Virgin Islands shall continue in office until their successors are appointed and have qualified unless sooner removed by competent authority.

(June 22, 1936, ch. 699, §40, 49 Stat. 1817.)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsHardness and Second Phase Percentage of Ni-Ti-Hf Compounds After Heat Treatment at 700CThe Vickers hardness and second phase precipitation of three ternary intermetallic Ni-Ti-Hf compounds containing either 1, 3 or 5 at.% Hf were compared to 60-Nitinol (55 at.% Ni - 45 at.% Ti). Heat treatment either at 700 C or with a subsequent aging step, hardened the 3 and 5 at.% Hf-containing ternaries to approximately 620 HV (56 HRC). Heat treatment increased the hardness of the 1 at.% Hf compound by more than 25 percent. Average hardness of the 3 and 5 at.% Hf ternaries, though higher than that of the binary Ni-Ti or the Ni-Ti-Hf compound containing 1 at.% Hf, appeared to be fairly insensitive to the different heat treatments. There was a drastic reduction of fatigue-enhancing second phase precipitates for the 5 at.% Hf ternaries compared to the other compounds. These results should guide materials selection for development of aerospace componentry.Document ID20170001793Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsStanford, Malcolm K.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredFebruary 28, 2017Publication DateFebruary 1, 2017Subject CategoryMetals And Metallic MaterialsReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN37727E-19334NASA/TM-2017-219453Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 109492.02.03.02.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsintermetallicsmetallographyVickers hardnessphotomicrographyAvailable DownloadsNameType20170001793.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
### §41907. Weighing mail

The United States Postal Service may weigh mail transported by aircraft between places in Alaska and make statistical and administrative computations necessary in the interest of mail service. When the Secretary of Transportation decides that additional or more frequent weighings of mail are advisable or necessary to carry out this part, the Postal Service shall provide the weighings, but it is not required to provide them for continuous periods of more than 30 days.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1157, §41910; renumbered §41907 and amended Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(6), (7)(B), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4289; Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title V, §539(g), Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3370.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 41910 | 49 App.:1376(f). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, §406(f), 72 Stat. 764. |
| | 49 App.:1551(b)(1)(E). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, 72 Stat. 731, §1601(b)(1)(E); added Oct. 4, 1984, Pub. L. 98–443, §3(e), 98 Stat. 1704. |

Section

The text of 49 App.:1376(f) (2d sentence) is omitted as surplus because of 39:chs. 4 and 10. The words "upon request of the Board" are omitted as surplus because the Secretary of Transportation makes the determination. The words "therefor in like manner" are omitted as surplus.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 41907, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1155, related to prices for foreign transportation of mail, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(7)(A), (c), Oct. 13, 2008, 122 Stat. 4289, 4290, effective Oct. 1, 2008.

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–254 substituted "and administrative" for "and –administrative".

2008—Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(7)(B), renumbered section 41910 of this title as this section.

Pub. L. 110–405, §2(b)(6), substituted "The United States Postal Service may weigh mail transported by aircraft between places in Alaska and make statistical and –administrative computations necessary in the interest of mail service." for "The United States Postal Service may weigh mail transported by aircraft and make statistical and administrative computations necessary in the interest of mail service."

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

#### Effective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–405 effective Oct. 1, 2008, see section 2(c) of Pub. L. 110–405, set out as a note under section 101 of Title 39, Postal Service.
### **CHAPTER 9—AIRCRAFT**
#### § 56.9308 Switch throws.

Switch throws shall be installed to provide clearance to protect switchmen from contact with moving trains.
EXHIBIT 18.1

 

 

 

August 1, 2013

 

Board of Directors

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc.

100 West Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 9

Boulder, CO 80302

 

Dear Directors:

 

We are providing this letter to you forinclusion as an exhibit to your Form 10-Q filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

 

We have been provided a copy of the Company'sQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013. Note 8 therein describes a change in accounting principle forrevenue recognition from the proportional performance method to the completed performance method. It should be understood thatthe preferability of one acceptable method of accounting over another for revenue recognition has not been addressed in any authoritativeaccounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below we have relied on management's determination that this change inaccounting principle is preferable. Based on our reading of management's stated reasons and justification for this change in accountingprinciple in the Form 10-Q, and our discussions with management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factorsrelating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents, in the Company's circumstances, the adoption ofa preferable accounting principle in conformity with ASC 250, Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.

 

We have not auditedany financial statements of the Company as of any date or for any period. Accordingly, our comments are subject to change uponcompletion of an audit of the financial statements covering the period of the accounting change.

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

 

StarkSchenkein, LLP
### §47523. National aviation noise policy

(a) General Requirements.—Not later than July 1, 1991, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish by regulation a national aviation noise policy that considers this subchapter, including the phaseout and nonaddition of stage 2 aircraft as provided in this subchapter and dates for carrying out that policy and reporting requirements consistent with this subchapter and law existing as of November 5, 1990.

(b) Detailed Economic Analysis.—The policy shall be based on a detailed economic analysis of the impact of the phaseout date for stage 2 aircraft on competition in the airline industry, including—

(1) the ability of air carriers to achieve capacity growth consistent with the projected rate of growth for the airline industry;

(2) the impact of competition in the airline and air cargo industries;

(3) the impact on nonhub and small community air service; and

(4) the impact on new entry into the airline industry.

(Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1288.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 47523 | 49 App.:2152. | Nov. 5, 1990, Pub. L. 101–508, §9303, 104 Stat. 1388–378. |

Section

In this section, the text of 49 App.:2152(c) is omitted as executed.

In subsection (a), the words "(hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the 'Secretary')" are omitted because of the restatement. The words "this subchapter" (the first time they appear) are substituted for "the findings, determinations, and provisions of this chapter" to eliminate unnecessary words.

Subsection (b) is tabulated for clarity.
### PART A—SAFETY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

      <ARTICLE>               5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE FORM 10-QSB OF BRILLIANT DIGITAL
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO WHICH THIS EXHIBIT IS A PART AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER
SHARE DATA).
</LEGEND>

<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                         7,336
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                  3,019
<ALLOWANCES>                                                      82
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              11,505
<PP&E>                                                         2,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                                 1,553
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                18,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                          8,200
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                          15
<OTHER-SE>                                                     9,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  18,198
<SALES>                                                          244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 244
<CGS>                                                            303
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  4,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  30
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                              (48)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              (4,217)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          (4,217)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 (4,217)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (0.31)


</TABLE>
May 17, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MILTON GARCIA, Appellant

NOS: 14-10-00821-CV

 14-10-00856-CV

 14-10-01145-CV

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BAC HOME LOAN SERVICING, LP, AND 

NEWPORT INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees

____________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Bank of America 

Corporation; BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP; and Newport Insurance Company, signed 

October 25, 2010, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record 

and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Milton Garcia, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We 

further order this decision certified below for observance.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 2070** 

HIEDA KEELER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
DR. LAWRENCE CHANG; PARISER DERMATOLOGY; DR. DENNIS CRUFF; HAMPTON SENTARA SURGERY SPECIALISTS; HAMPTON SENTARA CAREPLEX; DR. BERNIE SKINNER; TIDEWATER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING , Defendants

- Appellees

.

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

. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. ( 4:15

- cv - 00019

- AWA

- TEM )

Submitted : December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Hieda A. Keeler , Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Seth Dillman , HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC , Virginia Beach, Virginia; Dorinda Parkola Burton , Michael Todd Gerber , POOLE MAHONEY, PC , Virginia Beach, Virginia; Isaac Abraham McBeth , RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC , Richmond, Virginia ; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr., RAWLS, M CNELIS & MITCHELL, PC , Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Hieda A. Keeler appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint

. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Keeler ’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Keeler has forfeited appellate review of the

court’s order. Accordingly , we affirm the district court ’ s judgment . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 240 (Monday, December 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27401]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD


Notice of Board Meeting

DATES: December 21, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-
877-446-3914, Code: 2205917.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of 
External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Board Meeting Agenda

Open Session

1. Approval of the November 16, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes
2. Monthly Reports
    (a) Participant Activity Reports
    (b) Investment Performance
    (c) Legislative Report
3. Quarterly Reports
    (d) Vendor Risk Management Update

Closed Session

4. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).

Informational Session

5. Ethics and Fiduciary Training

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1).

    Dated: December 9, 2020.
Dharmesh Vashee,
Acting General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-27401 Filed 12-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
### [§§24501 to 24506. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–134, title I, §106(a), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2573]

Section 24501, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 919; Pub. L. 103–429, §6(21), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4379; Pub. L. 104–88, title III, §308(h), Dec. 29, 1995, 109 Stat. 947, related to status of Amtrak Commuter and applicable laws.

Section 24502, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 920, related to board of directors of Amtrak Commuter.

Section 24503, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 921, related to appointment and service of officers of Amtrak Commuter.

Section 24504, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 921, related to general authority of Amtrak Commuter.

Section 24505, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 921, related to Amtrak's rights and responsibilities as relating to commuter rail passenger transportation.

Section 24506, Pub. L. 103–272, §1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 922, provided that certain powers and duties of Consolidated Rail Corporation were not affected by this chapter.

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

#### Trackage Rights Not Affected

Pub. L. 105–134, title I, §106(c), Dec. 2, 1997, 111 Stat. 2573, provided that: "The repeal of chapter 245 of title 49, United States Code, by subsection (a) of this section is without prejudice to the retention of trackage rights over property owned or leased by commuter authorities."
**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**SECTIONS
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





In
      connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Radale Imports, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 (the
“Report”),


I,
      Ken
      Swanson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to my
      knowledge:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78o (d)); and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Dated:
              February 19, 2008
            
            */s/ Ken Swanson*Ken
                Swanson
              Chief
                Executive Officer





The
      above
      certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-QSB
      or as a separate disclosure document.




Exhibit
        32