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

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2019

No. 04-19-00057-CV

Norma SULLIVAN,

Appellant

v.

Juana MORALES,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV01223

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant failed 

to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that appellant is 

not entitled to preparation of the clerk’s record without paying the fee.

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court on or before 

February 12, 2019, that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of January, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

SARA BERRY

 v. CASE NO.: 4:20-cv-00369-MW-MAF 

RICHARD PRUDOM and FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS

JUDGMENT

The parties are ordered to comply with their settlement agreement. The Court

reserves jurisdiction to enforce the order to comply with the settlement agreement.

All claims in this case are voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41.

4/22/2021

JESSICA J. LYUBLANOVITS

CLERK OF COURT

s/ Chip Epperson

DATE Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:20-cv-00369-MW-MAF Document 27 Filed 04/22/21 Page 1 of 1
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2565 

To provide for the termination of employment of employees of the Internal 

Revenue Service who take certain official actions for political purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 27, 2013 

Mr. RENACCI (for himself, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. STIVERS, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. 

GIBBS, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio, Mr. 

HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. JOYCE, Mr. MASSIE, Mr. BOUSTANY, Mr. 

TIBERI, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, 

Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. YOUNG of Indiana, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. DELANEY, Mr. CARNEY, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. 

ROSKAM, Mrs. BLACK, Mr. LABRADOR, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. NUGENT, Mr. 

ROTHFUS, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. MARINO, and Mr. GRIFFIN

of Arkansas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide for the termination of employment of employees 

of the Internal Revenue Service who take certain official 

actions for political purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Stop Targeting Our 

5 Politics IRS Act’’ or as the ‘‘STOP IRS Act’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2565 IH

1 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF INTERNAL REV2 ENUE SERVICE EMPLOYEES FOR TAKING OF3 FICIAL ACTIONS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. 

4 Paragraph (10) of section 1203(b) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

6 is amended to read as follows: 

7 ‘‘(10) performing, delaying, or failing to per8 form (or threatening to perform, delay, or fail to 

9 perform) any official action (including any audit) 

10 with respect to a taxpayer for purpose of extracting 

11 personal gain or benefit or for a political purpose.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HAVEMEYER’S ESTATE v. STODDARD.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Landlord and Tenant (§ 303*)—Summary Proceedings—Verification of Petition.

Summary proceedings by a landlord cannot be maintained where there is no proof that the person who verified the petition was his agent.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. §§ 1303-1309; Dec. Dig. § 303.*]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.

Action by the Estate of Henry O. Havemeyer against Charles H.. Stoddard. Final order in summary proceedings for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, BIJUR, and PAGE, JJ.

Robert P. Beyer, of New York City, for appellant.

Joseph K. Ellenbogen, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Apart from the question raised as to the identity of the “Estate of Henry O. Havemeyer” in whose name this proceeding was brought, there was no proof that the person who verified the petition was the agent of the landlord.

Order reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Case 4:99-cv-00317-RH Document 33 Filed 11/09/99 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Martin L. Warzala, Petitioner, v James Melton, as Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of New York, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 7 8 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which suspended petitioner’s license to drive for 20 days. Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident at about 8:00 p.m. on May 8, 1977, when a vehicle operated in a southerly direction by one Joseph *928Marra passed through a yield sign at a “Y” intersection and struck petitioner’s automobile head on as he prepared to bear left and continue along the main highway in a northerly route. Marra was arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition (a breathalyzer test revealed he had a .21% blood alcohol content), and with failure to yield the right of way. He thereafter pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while his ability was impaired by alcohol and to an equipment violation. No charges were lodged against petitioner. Following a hearing pursuant to section 510 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, petitioner’s license was suspended for a period of 60 days, the referee determining that he had failed to keep to the right at the time of the accident (see Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 1120, subd [a]). This decision was affirmed by the appeals board, but'the period of suspension was reduced to 20 days. The conclusion that petitioner had failed to keep his vehicle to the right was based on a finding by the referee, accepting the investigating officer’s testimony, that the impact occurred some 40 feet from the intersection in the southbound lane of travel. In our view, this finding plainly misinterprets the evidence in a critical way for the officer actually testified that the collision occurred “approximately forty feet from Boght Road.” The specific points of reference for the estimation were not detailed, but it can hardly be thought that this same officer would accuse Marra of a failure to yield had he believed the incident took place outside the intersection itself. Moreover, the physical facts and the testimony of disinterested eyewitnesses were consistent in placing the accident within the intersection, giving petitioner the right of way (see Vehicle. and Traffic Law, § 1142, subd [b]). Any contrary resolution of the matter would have to be considered irrational and would not possess substantial evidentiary support (see *300 Gramatan Ave. Assoc. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176). Determination annulled, and petition granted, with costs. Mahoney, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Casey and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
31.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(a)
and 15d-14(a) as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of
2002





I,
Michael P. Robbins, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of The Fashion House Holdings,
Inc.;





2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:





a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




b) Any fraud, whether or not material,
that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




THE
      FASHION HOUSE HOLDINGS, INC.Date: May
      14, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Michael P.
      RobbinsMichael
      P. RobbinsInterim
      Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 227 (Friday, November 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72872-72873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29696]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Performance Review Board Members

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) agencies are 
required to publish a notice in the Federal Register of the appointment 
of Performance Review Board (PRB) members. This notice updates the VA 
Performance Review Board of the Department of Veterans Affairs that was 
published in the Federal Register on October 16, 2009 (Vol. 74, No. 
199).

DATES: Effective Date: November 26, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dadrian Brown, Human Resources 
Specialist, Corporate Senior Executive Management Office (006E), 
Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20420, (202) 461-7078.

VA Performance Review Board (PRB)

Primary Board Members

John U. Sep[uacute]lveda, Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and 
Administration (Chairperson).
Fernando Rivera, Acting Network Director, VISN 5.

[[Page 72873]]

Michael Cardarelli, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits.
Paul Hutter, Chief of Staff, Veterans Health Administration.
Robert L. Neary, Associate Chief Facilities Management Officer for 
Service Delivery, Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction.
Will A. Gunn, General Counsel.
William T. Grams, Acting Assistant Secretary for Management.
Martha Orr, Executive Director, Quality, Performance, and Oversight, 
Office of Information and Technology.
Raul Perea-Henze, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning.
Tonya M. Deanes, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Human Resources 
Management.
Patricia C. Adams, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Civilian 
Human Resources.

Alternate Board Members

Deborah McCallum, Assistant General Counsel.
Diana Rubens, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations, 
VBA.
Madhulika Agarwal, Chief Officer, Patient Care Services, VHA.
Rose K. Quicker, Associate Chief Facilities Management Officer for 
Resource Management, Office of Acquisition, Logistics and Construction.
Walter Hall, Assistant General Counsel.
James Sullivan, Director, Office of Asset and Enterprise Management, 
Office of Management.
Rom Mascetti, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resource Management, 
Office of Information and Technology.
Dat Tran, Director, National Center for Veterans Analysis and 
Statistics, Office of Policy and Planning.

    Dated: November 16, 2010.
Eric K. Shinseki,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010-29696 Filed 11-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
#### § 3800.1 General.

The World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB) was established on June 3, 1977, by Secretary's Memorandum 1920, entitled “World Food and Agricultural Outlook and Situation Board.” The primary responsibility of WAOB is to coordinate and review all commodity and aggregate agricultural and food data and analyses used to develop outlook and situation material within the Department of Agriculture.
#### § 400.410 Penalties.

Unauthorized disclosure of SSN's or EIN's by any person may subject that person, and the person soliciting the unauthorized disclosure, to civil or criminal sanctions imposed under various Federal statutes, including 26 U.S.C. 7613, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and 42 U.S.C. 408.

[57 FR 46297, Oct. 8, 1992. Redesignated at 62 FR 28608, May 27, 1997]
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. Case No. 1:96cr20-MW/GRJ-4

JOHN CALVIN EVERETT,

DefendantPetitioner.

___________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This Court has considered, without hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and 

Recommendation, ECF No. 667, and has also reviewed de novo Petitioner’s

amended objections, ECF No. 674. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

The report and recommendation is accepted and adopted, over Petitioner’s

amended objections, as this Court’s opinion. The Clerk shall enter judgment stating,

“Petitioner’s motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2255, ECF No. 666, is 

summarily DISMISSED as this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive 

motion absent authorization from the Eleventh Circuit, or, alternatively, Petitioner’s 
2

motion should be DENIED as Petitioner is not entitled to resentencing. A 

Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file. 

SO ORDERED on January 5, 2018.

s/Mark E. Walker ____

United States District Judge
Order entered October 21, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00369-CR

JAMES EDWARD GRUMBLES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-70745-Y

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-30456

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN LACOUR,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CR-10012-3

--------------------

October 25, 2001

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Lacour, federal prisoner # 09668-035, appeals the

district court’s denial of his postconviction motion to rescind

the imposition of a $40,000 fine. Lacour challenged the fine on

direct appeal, and we affirmed the district court. See United

States v. Lacour, No. 98-30803 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2000)

(unpublished). Lacour, however, again argues that imposition of

a fine was a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights because of

his inability to pay.
No. 01-30456

-2-

The district court was without jurisdiction to entertain

this unauthorized motion. See United States v. Hatten, 167 F.3d

884, 886 (5th Cir. 1999) (district court has no jurisdiction to

entertain a challenge to the legality of a fine imposed as a term

of supervised release); see also United States v. Early, 27 F.3d

140, 141-42 (5th Cir. 1994) (district court has no jurisdiction

to entertain unauthorized motions). This appeal is without

arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707

F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is dismissed. 5th Cir.

R. 42.2.

DISMISSED.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:94-cr-01036-MP

JAMES R YOUNG,

Defendant.

___________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 112, Motion for Designation of Federal Sentence,

filed by James R Young. In order to effectively resolve the motion, the Court hereby directs the

government to file a response by Friday, August 19, 2005, and the Federal Public Defender to

file a reply on behalf of the defendant by Friday, September 2, 2005. The clerk shall ensure that

a copy of this order is served on Tom Miller of the Federal Public Defender's office.

DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2005

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:94-cr-01036-MW-GRJ Document 114 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1531

LARRY YANCEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; COMMISSIONER OF THE

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-1146-1)

Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998

Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Yancey, Appellant Pro Se. Charlotte Jefferson Hardnett,

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Yancey appeals the district court’s order denying his

action. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. Yancey v. United States, No. CA-97-1146-1 (M.D.N.C.

Apr. 7, 1998). We deny Yancey’s motion for summary reversal. We

also dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 3565.209 Loan amortization.

Each guaranteed loan shall be made for a period of not less than 25 nor greater than 40 years from the date the loan was made and may provide for amortization of the loan over a period of not to exceed 40 years with a final payment of the balance due at the end of the loan term.

[67 FR 16970, Apr. 9, 2002]