alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2023

No. 04-23-00132-CV

IN RE Kelly Blakeslee ALTIC, Shipt, Inc.

Original Proceeding1

ORDER

On February 21, 2023, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

temporary relief. On February 22, 2023, relators filed a motion to dismiss the mandamus petition 

and motion for temporary relief because the parties settled the underlying cause.2 We GRANT the 

motion and DISMISS the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for temporary relief. 

It is so ORDERED on March 8, 2023.

_____________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 8th day of March, 2023.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2021CI18086, styled Cedric English v. Kelly Blakeslee Altic and Shipt, Inc., 

pending in the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding. 2 Relators filed an advisory requesting to withdraw their mandamus petition and motion for temporary relief. We 

construe this advisory as a motion to dismiss.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

DARRON ROUSE #2010-1201145, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 12 C 2706

)

COOK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Darron Rouse (“Rouse”) has submitted a self-prepared 42

U.S.C. §1983 (“Section 1983”) Complaint against the Cook County 1

Department of Corrections (“Department”), Sheriff Tom Dart and

several personnel employed at the Department (commonly called

“County Jail”). Because Rouse has paid neither the $350 filing

fee nor complied with the alternative requirement imposed on

persons in custody by 28 U.S.C. §1915 (“Section 1915”), this

action cannot go forward until he satisfies one of those two

requirements.

If a defendant cannot afford to pay the filing fee in

advance, Section 1915 permits him or her to seek in forma

pauperis status. When such a person is a prisoner, Section

1915(a)(2) requires the submission of both an affidavit described

 This memorandum order uses “self-prepared” in the sense 1

that Rouse has employed the form Complaint supplied by the

Clerk’s Office for use by pro se persons in custody, filling in

the requested information in typewritten form.

Case: 1:12-cv-02706 Document #: 4 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:12
in Section 1915(a)(1) and a certified copy of the prisoner’s 2

trust fund account statement for the six-month period preceding

the filing of the Complaint (in this instance that would cover

the period from October 10, 2011 through April 10, 2012). That

latter submission is essential to enable this Court to make the

calculation required by Section 1915(b)(1).

Unless and until Rouse complies with one of the two

alternatives described here, his case cannot proceed. And unless

he does so on or before May 7, 2012, this Court will be

constrained to dismiss both the Complaint and this action without

prejudice.3

________________________________________

Milton I. Shadur

Senior United States District Judge

Date: April 19, 2012

 That form is available through the Clerk’s Office and, 2

this Court believes, also at correctional institutions throughout

the state.

 In the meantime, this Court does not address any 3

questions as to possible flaws in the Complaint, such as the

inclusion of Department--which is not a suable legal entity--as a

defendant.

2

Case: 1:12-cv-02706 Document #: 4 Filed: 04/19/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:13
#### Barbara Stewart, as Executor of Archibald Stewart, Deceased, Appellant, v Guy E.C. Maitland et al., Respondents.

[835 NYS2d 39]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered March 20, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, dismissed the sixth and eighth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered February 21, 2006, unanimously dismissed, without costs, in light of the motion court’s recall of that order and its replacement with the later order.

The cause of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation was duplicative of plaintiffs contract claim, inasmuch as it alleged no factual basis for recovery other than defendants’ failure to keep promises; no damages were sought thereunder that would not be recoverable under a contract measure of damages *(see Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp.,*288 AD2d 41 [2001]). In view of the dismissal of the fraud cause of action, there was no predicate for plaintiffs request to impose a constructive trust, that remedy being “fraud-rectifying” rather than “intent-enforcing” *(Bazerman v Edwards,*295 AD2d 115 [2002]). Concur—Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Kavanagh, JJ.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

2021 Negotiated Rulemaking

Affordability and Student Loans Committee

I. Introductions

II. Review Protocols

III. Issue Introduction and Process

a. Issue #1: Total and permanent disability discharge

b. Issue #2: Closed school discharge

c. Issue #3: Eliminate interest capitalization for nonstatutorycapitalization events

d. Issue #4: Improving the Public Service Loan Forgiveness

(PSLF) Application Process

e. Issue #5: PSLF employer eligibility and full-time

employment

f. Issue #6: Borrower defense to repayment –

adjudicationprocess

g. Issue #7: Borrower defense to repayment –

post-adjudication

h. Issue #8: Borrower defense to repayment – recovery 

frominstitutions

i. Issue #9: Pre-dispute arbitration

j. Issue #10: Creating a new income-drive repayment plan

k. Issue #11: False certification discharge

l. Issue #12: Pell grant eligibility for prison education

programs

IV. Public Comment
19.805-2 Procedures. ( a ) Offers shall be solicited from those sources identified in accordance with 19.804-3.
( b ) The SBA will determine the eligibility of the apparent successful offeror. Eligibility is based on section 8(a) program criteria. For a two-step design-build procurement, an 8(a) participant must be eligible for award under the 8(a) program on the initial date for receipt of phase one offers specified in the solicitation (see 13 CFR 124.507(d)(3)). ( 1 ) In either negotiated or sealed bid competitive 8(a) acquisitions SBA will determine the eligibility of the apparent successful offeror and advise the contracting office within 5 working days after receipt of the contracting office's request for an eligibility determination. ( i ) If SBA determines that the apparent successful offeror is ineligible, the contracting office will then send to SBA the identity of the next highest evaluated offeror for an eligibility determination. The process is repeated until SBA determines that an identified offeror is eligible for award.
( ii ) If the contracting officer believes that the apparent successful offeror (or the offeror SBA has determined eligible for award) is not responsible to perform the contract, the contracting officer must refer the matter to SBA for Certificate of Competency consideration under subpart 19.6.
( 2 ) For a two-step design-build procurement, an 8(a) participant must be eligible for award under the 8(a) program on the initial date for receipt of phase one offers specified in the solicitation (see 13 CFR 124.507(d)(3)).
( 3 ) In any case in which an 8(a) participant is determined to be ineligible, SBA will notify the 8(a) participant of that determination.
( c ) Any party with information questioning the eligibility of an 8(a) participant to continue participation in the 8(a) program or for the purposes of a specific 8(a) award may submit such information to the SBA in accordance with 13 CFR 124.112(c).
( d ) ( 1 ) SBA does not certify joint ventures, as entities, into the 8(a) program.
( 2 ) A contracting officer may consider a joint venture for contract award. SBA does not approve joint ventures for competitive awards (but see 13 CFR 124.501(g) for SBA's determination of participant eligibility).
[82 FR 4729, Jan. 13, 2017, as amended at 87 FR 58224, Sept. 23, 2022; 88 FR 69525, Oct. 5, 2023]
#### In the Matter of Club 4223, Inc., Doing Business as the Idle Hour, et al., Petitioners, v Edward J. McLaughlin et al., Constituting the State Liquor Authority, Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, dated September 22, 1978, which, after a hearing, revoked petitioners’ license, imposed a $1,000 bond claim and placed a two-year proscription against the licensing of the premises. Petition granted to the extent that the determination is annulled, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remanded to the respondents for a new hearing in accordance herewith. The respondént authority charged the petitioners with allowing a lewd and indecent dancer to perform at the club which had a special on-premises liquor license. The alleged indecent act was witnessed by three police officers, who also arrested the dancer for prostitution. It was perfectly reasonable for the petitioners to assume that the three officers would be called by the respondents to testify at the hearing. Nevertheless, only one of the officers was called by the authority. At the completion of the officer’s cross-examination, counsel for petitioners, when he learned for the first time that the authority did not intend to call the other two officers, requested a continuance so that he could subpoena them. The request was denied. It was error to deny petitioners’ application. In view of the severity of the charges and the potential for the drastic punishment of license revocation if the charges were sustained, petitioners should have been afforded every reasonable opportunity to examine and possibly impeach all of the key witnesses to the alleged incident. The requested continuance was, under all of the circumstances, reasonable and proper. The refusal to grant a short adjournment thus constituted an abuse of discretion and resulted in the denial of a full and fair hearing. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled and the matter remanded to the authority for a new hearing, at which petitioners will have the opportunity of examining all of the police officers who were in the bar on the night in question. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, O’Connor, Lazer and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
Burlington Northern Railroad's Consolidated Financial Statements
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      685
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (39)
<INVENTORY>                                        129
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1078
<PP&E>                                           10904
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (4214)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    8282
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1570
<BONDS>                                            692
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3529
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      8282
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  3926
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3118
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  42
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    793
<INCOME-TAX>                                       304
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                489
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       489
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Attachment C –

Milestones and Activities by Month/Year for Meeting WQBEL

at Stormwater Treatment AreasMilestones and Activities by Month/Year for Meeting WQBEL at Stormwater Treatment AreasSTA 1WLand AcquisitionDesignAcquire all permitsConstructionFloodingSTA Adjusting to WQBELDischarge Consistent WQBELSTA 1EDecommission PSTAACOE RepairsSTA adjusting to repairsImproved PerformanceDivert Flows to STA 1WDischarge Consistent WQBELSTA 2 - Comp B SBOAssumed Court RulingNEPA ReviewDesignAcquire All PermitsConstruction A1/As STAFloodingA1/A2 Accepting FlowsSTA 2/Comp B-SBO to WQBELSTA 3/4 - Comp B NBOAssume Court RulesNEPA ReviewDesign A1 shallow storageAcquire all permitsConstruction shallow storageA1 is floodedSTA 3/4 & B-NBOSTA 3/4 & B-NBO Meets WQBELSTA 5/6/Comp C/C-139Construction Comp CComp C is floodedSTA 5/6 AdjustingSTA 5/6/Comp C ImprovedFlow going thru C-139STA 5/6/Comp C Meets WQBELLand Acquisition C-139NEPA ReviewDesign (C-139)Acquire all permits C-139Construction C-139Flooding C-139Flows Now Going to C-139Note: Each month equals one cell. The right end of the bar (or right side of an individual cell) represents the end of the month.DischargingCourtCourtDesignConstructionPermittingPermittingDesignDischargingNEPA REVIEWPermittingACOE Repairing STAFloodingDischargingImproved PerformanceSTA AdjustingDecommission PSTADesignDesignPermittingConstructionFlooding2011 2012 2013Acquiring Land2020Construction20192016 201820172014 2015NEPA REVIEW2010ConstructionFlooding Comp CNEPA ReviewFloodingAdjustingAdjustingFloodingConstructionDischargingImproved Performance
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 29 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 2, 2017 

Mr. LANKFORD (for himself and Mr. MANCHIN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Balfour 

Declaration. 

Whereas the Jewish people have had a homeland in modernday Israel for more than 3,000 years; 

Whereas, on November 2, 1917, United Kingdom Foreign 

Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour wrote to Lord Walter 

Rothschild, to be declared to the Zionist Federation, a 

letter declaring, on behalf of the Government of the 

United Kingdom, support for a home for the Jewish people in the former Ottoman district of Palestine; 

Whereas this letter, known as the Balfour Declaration, was 

ratified into international law by the League of Nations 

on July 24, 1922; 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 29 IS 

Whereas, on September 21, 1922, President Warren G. Harding signed House Joint Resolution 322, after unanimous 

support from the House of Representatives and the Senate, favoring the establishment, in the former Ottoman 

district of Palestine, of a national home for the Jewish 

people; 

Whereas the Balfour Declaration clearly recognized and 

sought to uphold the ‘‘civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine’’, as well as 

the ‘‘rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any 

other country’’; and 

Whereas the Balfour Declaration was a significant part of 

the chain of events that led to the establishment of the 

modern State of Israel on May 14, 1948: Now, therefore, 

be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) commemorates the centenary of the Balfour 

4 Declaration; 

5 (2) affirms its commitment to maintaining the 

6 strongest of bilateral ties with the State of Israel; 

7 and 

8 (3) recognizes the importance of the establish9 ment of the modern State of Israel as a secure and 

10 democratic homeland for the Jewish people. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
#### Southerntier Tree Farms, Inc., Respondent, v. Richard Smith et al., Appellants.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied as premature, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board

# DATES:

January 26, 2021 at 10:00 a.m.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Telephonic. Dial-in (listen only) information: Number: 1-415-527-5035, Code: 199 601 5134; or via web:                         *https://tspmeet.webex.com/​tspmeet/​onstage/​g.php?​MTID=​e84524dda563a8355830b6e7b51e26b53*.                    

# 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 December 21, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes

2. Monthly Reports

(a) Participant Activity Report

(b) Legislative Report

3. Quarterly Reports

(c) Investment Policy

(d) Budget Review

(e) Audit Status

4. Internal Audit Update

5. Annual Expense Ratio Review

6. Multi-asset Manager Update

7. Recordkeeping Services Acquisition (RKSA) Update

### Closed Session

8. Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(9)(B).

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

Dated: January 14, 2021.

Dharmesh Vashee,

Acting General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.

[FR Doc. 2021-01321 Filed 1-21-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50260 

Summary Calendar

__________________

HOMERO ACEVEDO,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ROBERT V. FRANCO, Warden, CHARLES

TURNBO, Regional Director, JOHN L.

MEGATHLIN, Administrator,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-94-CA-431-H

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 3, 1995)

Before KING, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Homero Acevedo's notice of appeal of a district court order

denying him in forma pauperis (IFP) status on appeal has been

construed as a request from this court for leave to appeal IFP

the district court's order denying Acevedo's 28 U.S.C. § 2241

petition for federal habeas relief. To be granted leave to

appeal IFP, Acevedo must demonstrate that he will present a
No. 95-50260

-2-

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562,

586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Acevedo contends that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the

U.S. Probation Office unconstitutionally altered his sentence by

requiring him to begin paying his $5,000 fine during

incarceration. Acevedo also asserts that he was forced to assign

at least 50% of his UNICOR (Federal Prison Industries, Inc.)

earnings to the payment of his penal fine.

Payment of monetary fines are usually payable immediately

unless otherwise directed by the district court. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3572(d). There is nothing in Acevedo's judgment which

demonstrates any intent by the district court to alter the

statutory intent of immediate payment of Acevedo's penal fine.

Additionally, mandatory participation in the Inmate Financial

Responsibilities Program (IFRP), which requires inmates with

UNICOR positions grade one through four to allot not less than

50% of their monthly pay to payment of monetary penalties, does

not violate any constitutional right as such participation is

reasonably related to a legitimate penological interest in

encouraging inmates to rehabilitate themselves by developing a

sense of financial responsibility. James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d

627, 630 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 870 (1989); 28 C.F.R.

§ 545.11(b)(2).

Because Acevedo has failed to identify a non-frivolous

issue, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED

and the appeal is DISMISSED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-

20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit
      32(a)








**CERTIFICATION
      FURNISHED PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**




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




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report
      on Form 10-Q of Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ending
      September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
      the
      date hereof (the “Report”), I, William D. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)           the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




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











/s/
      William D. Johnson


William
      D. Johnson


Chairman,
      President and Chief Executive Officer


November
      5, 2007








This
      certification is being furnished and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
      for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, or the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
#### In the Matter of Harold C. Herman, an Attorney.

Motion to vacate reference and strike respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors at law in the State of New York denied as academic in view of the determination of this court on Motions M-496A and M-1295A contained in the order of this court entered on December 7, 1978. Concur— Fein, J. P., Lane, Markewich, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.