alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 18, 2023

NO. 03-21-00125-CV

Daniel Caldwell, Appellant

v.

Texas Board of Law Examiners, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND KELLY

AFFIRMED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING –

OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on December 28, 2020. The Court’s 

opinion and judgment dated March 7, 2023 are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record and the 

parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial court’s order. 

Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### JOHNSON, Appellant, v. RICHMOND LIGHT & R. CO., Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

June 5, 1914.)

Action by John Johnson against the Richmond Light & Railroad Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Unassociated Document


    Purchase
contract

     

    
      	
              Party
      A:

            	 
      	 
	
              Address:

            	 
      	 
	
              Legal
      representative:

            	 
      	 
	
              Party
      B:

            	 
      	 
	
              Address:

            	
              Tel:

            	 
	
              Legal
      representative:

            	 
      	 


    

    


     

    In
consideration of the mutual promises contained and intending to be PRC law
legally bound hereby, the parties agree to enter the contract.

     

    1. Name,
size, quantity, price, delivery date: the details of the product to be purchased
will be specified by sample and ordering lists

     

    2.
Quality standard: Must be executed based on PRC regulation

     

    3.
Delivery date, place and shipping fee:  Party A will responsible for
it

     

    4.
Settlement time and payment method:  Monthly pay

     

    5. This
contract should effective from signature date upon signature with sealed by both
parties. Either of the parties are not allowed to modify or terminate, and if
modified or terminated, shall be subject to the agreement of both parties, and
both shall sign a side agreement.

     

    6. Any of
the Parties breach the contract during execution period, a written lawsuit,
mediation request, and arbitration request should be submitted to contract
arbitration department in accordance with PRC contract law

     

    7. This
Agreement is in two originals, each party holds one.

     

    8. This
agreement will be effective from _________ to _________.

     

     

    
      	
              Party
      A:

            	
              Party
      B:

            
	
              Signature:

            	
              Signature

            
	
              Date:

            	
              Date:
§ 1008.5 Effect of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ( a ) DOE shall not rely on any exemption contained in the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) to withhold from the individual to whom it pertains, any record which is otherwise accessible to such individual under this part.
( b ) DOE shall rely on subsection (b) of the Privacy Act to withhold information from a person other than the person to whom the record pertains only when the information is also exempt from disclosure under the FOIA.
( c ) Where a request for access to records is submitted pursuant to both the FOIA and the Privacy Act, the DOE shall, to the maximum extent possible, process the request under the provisions of this part, including the time limits of this part.
#### Howard G. Gelfand, Appellant, v John P. Oliver, Respondent.

[815 NYS2d 249]

*737In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated December 13, 2004, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof granting that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff, and the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice is reinstated.

The defendant formerly represented the plaintiff in connection with the sale of certain residential property in Head of the Harbor. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant, inter alia, mishandled the eviction of tenants by, among other things, commencing a landlord-tenant proceeding in the wrong court, thereby unnecessarily delaying the closing of the transaction and resulting in increased costs and expenses. Taking these allegations as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference *(see Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; *Dodge v King,*19 AD3d 359, 360 [2005]), we find that they state a legally cognizable cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice *(see Gamiel v Curtis & Riess-Curtis, P.C.,*16 AD3d 140, 141 [2005]; *see also Hayes v Wilson,*25 AD3d 586 [2006]).

Under the circumstances, the defendant’s contention that any delay caused by his actions was de minimis cannot be resolved on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and must await further development of the record *(cf. Simons v Greenberg,*299 AD2d 265 [2002]).

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, however, as it was duplicative of the legal malpractice cause of action *(see Shivers v Siegel,*11 AD3d 447 [2004]; *Ferdinand v Crecca & Blair,*5 AD3d 538, 539 [2004]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.
Subpart 2845.1 - General    **Parent topic:** PART 2845 - GOVERNMENT PROPERTY2845.105 Contractors' property management system compliance.       The contractor's records for Government-furnished property may be kept as a separate account in the bureau's internal property management system, in which case the contracting officer or formally designated property administrator shall serve as custodian of the account.2845.105-70 Contractor reporting of Government-furnished property.       (a) In compliance with FAR 45.105, by January 31 of each year, DOJ contractors shall furnish the cognizant contracting officer an annual report of the DOJ property for which they are accountable as of the end of the calendar year.          (b) By March 1 of each year, bureaus shall submit to the FASS, JMD, a summary report of agency property furnished under each contract as of the end of the calendar year. The report shall include a listing of Government-furnished property for all contracts for which the bureau maintains the official Government records.
#### Jones *v.*The State.

August 12, 1913.

Atkinson, J.

1. On the trial the evidence tended to show that the homicide was murder without any mitigating circumstances, but the accused in his statement claimed that it was an accidental killing. The judge defined reasonable' doubt, and otherwise fully charged the jury on that subject. Immediately following such charge he also instructed the jury on the law of accidental killing, thus: “The law says no person shall be convicted of any crime or misdemeanor that is the result of an accident or misfortune; and in this ease the court charges you that if you are satisfied from the evidence in this case that the person alleged to have been killed, if he was killed, and you are satisfied that it was an accidental killing, and that there was no evil desire or intention or criminal negligence, you would not be authorized to find the defendant guilty.” After giving the instruction just quoted he proceeded to charge the law in regard to the prisoner’s statement, after which he concluded with the charge: “If you are not satisfied to "a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt of the material allegations in the bill of indictment, or if you have any reasonable doubt in this case, it would be your duty to give the benefit of that doubt to the defendant and acquit him.” *Held,*that the charge in regard to homicide by accident was not error on the ground that it destroyed the effect of the charge on the law of reasonable doubt. Penal Code, § 40.

2. The evidence alleged to have been newly discovered was not of such character as would be likely to produce a different result on another trial. *Srochi*v. *Ventrees,*ante, 345 (78 S. E. 1003).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the discretion of the trial judge in refusing to grant a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*479Indictment for murder. Before Judge J. B. Park. Morgan superior court. April 23, 1913.

J. *M. Merritt,*for plaintiff in error. *T. 8: Felder, attorney-gen-*

*eral,*and *J. E. Pottle, solicitor-general,*contra.
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.635 Full calibration measurements on gamma stereotactic radiosurgery units. ( a ) A licensee authorized to use a gamma stereotactic radiosurgery unit for medical use shall perform full calibration measurements on each unit— ( 1 ) Before the first medical use of the unit;
( 2 ) Before medical use under the following conditions— ( i ) Whenever spot-check measurements indicate that the output differs by more than 5 percent from the output obtained at the last full calibration corrected mathematically for radioactive decay;
( ii ) Following replacement of the sources or following reinstallation of the gamma stereotactic radiosurgery unit in a new location; and
( iii ) Following any repair of the gamma stereotactic radiosurgery unit that includes removal of the sources or major repair of the components associated with the source assembly; and
( 3 ) At intervals not exceeding 1 year, with the exception that relative helmet factors need only be determined before the first medical use of a helmet and following any damage to a helmet.
( b ) To satisfy the requirement of paragraph (a) of this section, full calibration measurements must include determination of— ( 1 ) The output within ±3 percent;
( 2 ) Relative helmet factors;
( 3 ) Isocenter coincidence;
( 4 ) Timer accuracy and linearity over the range of use;
( 5 ) On-off error;
( 6 ) Trunnion centricity;
( 7 ) Treatment table retraction mechanism, using backup battery power or hydraulic backups with the unit off;
( 8 ) Helmet microswitches;
( 9 ) Emergency timing circuits; and
( 10 ) Stereotactic frames and localizing devices (trunnions).
( c ) A licensee shall use the dosimetry system described in § 35.630(a) to measure the output for one set of exposure conditions. The remaining radiation measurements required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section may be made using a dosimetry system that indicates relative dose rates.
( d ) A licensee shall make full calibration measurements required by paragraph (a) of this section in accordance with published protocols accepted by nationally recognized bodies.
( e ) A licensee shall mathematically correct the outputs determined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section at intervals not exceeding 1 month for cobalt-60 and at intervals consistent with 1 percent physical decay for all other radionuclides.
( f ) Full calibration measurements required by paragraph (a) of this section and physical decay corrections required by paragraph (e) of this section must be performed by the authorized medical physicist.
( g ) A licensee shall retain a record of each calibration in accordance with § 35.2632.
#### CALKINS, Respondent, v. HART, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 7, 1914.)

Action by *1109Mary E. Calkins, as administratrix, etc., against James M. Hart.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### In the Matter of Edward Erath, Petitioner, v Donald J. Dilworth, as Commissioner of Police of the County of Suffolk, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review so much of a determination of the respondent as, after a hearing, found petitioner guilty of four specifications of misconduct and dismissed him from his position on the Suffolk County Police Department. Determination confirmed insofar as reviewed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The determination under review is supported by substantial evidence and the sanction imposed is not so disproportionate to the offenses as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness (see *Matter of Pell v Board of Educ.,*34 NY2d 222). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Mangano and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
§ 993.49 Incoming regulation. ( a ) No handler shall receive prunes from producers or dehydrators, other than substandard prunes and undersized prunes, unless such prunes meet the minimum standards for natural condition prunes set forth in § 993.97 (Exhibit A), or as such standards may be modified, or the more restrictive grade regulation established pursuant to this section, and then in effect: *Provided,* That no handler shall receive any prunes (including substandard prunes and undersized prunes) from producers or dehydrators unless such prunes have been properly dried and cured in original natural condition, without the addition of water, and are free from active insect infestation, so that they are capable of being received, stored, and packed without material deterioration or spoilage. Any “high moisture content prunes,” as described in the exception in § 993.5(b), in the possession of a handler, shall be held separate and apart from any prunes held by him. If such “high moisture content prunes” are dried or dehydrated to a point where they are capable of being stored, without material deterioration or spoilage, unrefrigerated or not otherwise artificially preserved, they shall be deemed, at that time, to have been received by such handler as prunes, and shall be subject to all of the conditions and restrictions of this subpart.
( b ) The Secretary, on the basis of a recommendation of the committee or other information, may establish size regulations or more restrictive grade regulations with respect to prunes that may be received by a handler from producers and dehydrators whenever he finds that such action would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the act.
( c ) In no crop year shall a handler receive from producers or dehydrators prunes, other than as undersized prunes, which pass freely through a round opening with a diameter as follows: For French prunes 23/32 of an inch, and for non-French prunes 28/32 of an inch: *Provided,* That the Secretary upon a recommendation of the Committee, may establish larger openings whenever it is determined that supply conditions for a crop year warrant such regulation. The quantity of undersized prunes in any lot received by a handler from a producer or dehydrator shall be determined by the inspection service and entered on the applicable inspection certificate.
[26 FR 476, Jan. 19, 1961, as amended at 37 FR 862, Jan. 20, 1972; 46 FR 61637, Dec. 18, 1981; 88 FR 82232, Nov. 24, 2023]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

 v. ) CR. NO. 3:06-cr-204-MEF

)

HENRY ERIK YAPIAS )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the motion for writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, filed

August 22, 2006, and for good cause shown, it is

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is hereby

DIRECTED to issue a WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS AD PROSEQUENDUM addressed to

Limestone Correctional Facility, Harvest, Alabama, commanding it to deliver Henry Erik

Yapias to any United States Marshal or Deputy United States Marshal, and directing said

Marshal or Deputy to bring said prisoner before this court, to be held at Montgomery,

Alabama, on September 27, 2006, at 10:00 am, and to return the prisoner to said official

when the court shall have finished with him.

Done this 23 day of August, 2006. rd

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-00204-MEF-CSC Document 5 Filed 08/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 34
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 34 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 34.89 Location of documents and records. ( a ) Each licensee shall maintain copies of records required by this part and other applicable parts of this chapter at the location specified in § 34.13(k).
( b ) Each licensee shall also maintain copies of the following documents and records sufficient to demonstrate compliance at each applicable field station and each temporary jobsite; ( 1 ) The license authorizing the use of licensed material;
( 2 ) A copy of 10 CFR parts 19, 20, and 34 of NRC regulations;
( 3 ) Utilization records for each radiographic exposure device dispatched from that location as required by § 34.71.
( 4 ) Records of equipment problems identified in daily checks of equipment as required by § 34.73(a);
( 5 ) Records of alarm system and entrance control checks required by § 34.75, if applicable;
( 6 ) Records of direct reading dosimeters such as pocket dosimeter and/or electronic personal dosimeters readings as required by § 34.83;
( 7 ) Operating and emergency procedures required by § 34.81;
( 8 ) Evidence of the latest calibration of the radiation survey instruments in use at the site, as required by § 34.65;
( 9 ) Evidence of the latest calibrations of alarm ratemeters and operability checks of pocket dosimeters and/or electronic personal dosimeters as required by § 34.83;
( 10 ) Latest survey records required by § 34.85;
( 11 ) The shipping papers for the transportation of radioactive materials required by § 71.5 of this chapter; and
( 12 ) When operating under reciprocity pursuant to § 150.20 of this chapter, a copy of the Agreement State license authorizing the use of licensed materials.
SUBPART 39.2 – INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT)    *(Revised January 18, 2022 through PROCLTR 2021-17)* **Parent topic:** PART 39 – ACQUISITION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)39.201 Scope of subpart.    (b) Contracting officers can find EIT standards at GSA Government-wide IT Accessibility Program (https://www.section508.gov/). When Section 508 applies, contracting officers shall review the “Buy Accessible IT” section at GSA Government-wide IT Accessibility Program (https://www.section508.gov/); and use appropriate requirements language in the solicitation and, if applicable, in the performance work statement, statement of objective, or statement of work. The “Buy Accessible IT” section provides language for common EIT procurement requirements and a link to the current revision of the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) Rev 508.39.203 Applicability.    (a)(S-90) Unless an exception applies (reference FAR 39.204), contracting officers shall insert procurement note L29 in solicitations when procuring EIT products and services.       *****       L29 Section 508 Requirements (OCT 2021)       Offerors shall comply with the Section 508 accessibility requirements. By submission of its offer, the offeror affirms that its Electronic Information Technology (EIT) supplies and services are accessible as outlined in the law, the standard, and FAR Subpart 39.2. Offerors shall complete the current revision of the Voluntary Product Accessible Template (VPAT) Rev 508 at https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat (*copy website address into browser*). If applicable, offerors shall indicate where their Section 508 EIT compliance information is available for review (e.g., offeror’s website or other location the contracting officer can access). The contracting officer may require a demonstration of Section 508 compliance prior to award.       (S-91) Contracting officers shall insert procurement note H11 in solicitations and awards when procuring EIT products and services.       *****       H11 Section 508 Requirements (OCT 2020)       Contractors shall comply with the Section 508 Accessibility requirements in this contract and the current revision of the Voluntary Product Accessible Template (VPAT) Rev 508 at https://www.itic.org/policy/accessibility/vpat (*copy website address into browser*) as stated in their proposal, for the duration of contract performance.       *****39.204 Exceptions.    Contracting officers shall coordinate with Office of Counsel and DLA Information Operations, Section 508 office when seeking an exception to the requirement for an acquisition of EIT supplies or services to meet the applicable accessibility standards at 36 CFR Part 1194, EIT Accessibility Standards.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES HICKMAN HOLLOMAN, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 3:06cv786-MHT

) (WO) 

RICHARD ALLEN, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

OPINION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, petitioner, a state

inmate, filed this lawsuit seeking habeas relief. This

lawsuit is now before the court on the recommendation of

the United States Magistrate Judge that petitioner’s writ

petition be denied. Also before the court are

petitioner’s objections to the recommendation. After an

independent and de novo review of the record, the court

concludes that petitioner’s objections should be

overruled and the magistrate judge’s recommendation

adopted.

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 10/19/09 Page 1 of 2
An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 19th day of October, 2009.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00786-MHT-CSC Document 19 Filed 10/19/09 Page 2 of 2
Order entered November 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00086-CR

No. 05-14-00087-CR

JOSEPH GUERRA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 219-82353-2012, 219-81886-2013

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeals.

On October 21, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief had not been filed. On November 6, 2014, we received appellant’s brief, 

together with an extension motion. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeals, we 

VACATE the October 21, 2014 order requiring findings.

We GRANT the November 6, 2014 extension motion and ORDER appellant’s brief 

filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE