alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-21-00103-CV

__________________

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.P. AND L.P.

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 418th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-09-10212-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

R.L.P., the father of Z.P. and L.P., appealed from the final order in a 

proceeding filed by his former spouse that modified a prior order—the order 

establishing the rights of joint custody between R.L.P. and the mother of Z.P. and 

L.P. After R.L.P. filed his appeal, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals sent him 

notices to explain he needed to establish indigence to proceed in the appeal without 

paying the required filing fee. But R.L.P. failed to respond to the letters, and R.L.P. 

never filed evidence to support any allegations claiming indigence. And R.L.P. did 

not respond to the letters by paying a filing fee in his appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 

20.1. Finally, R.L.P. has neither arranged to pay the appellate filing fee or arranged 
2

to pay the fee proposed by the District Clerk to secure a clerk’s record to support his 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b).

On June 16, 2021, the Clerk of the Ninth Court of Appeals notified the parties 

the Court would dismiss the appeal unless R.L.P. paid the required filing fee. In 

response to the notice, R.L.P. failed to file any response. In the absence of 

satisfactory explanations justifying R.L.P.’s failure to pay the filing fee for his 

appeal and his failure to arrange to pay for a clerk’s record to support his appeal, we 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 25, 2021

Opinion Delivered August 26, 2021

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
§ 582.6197 Calcium diacetate. ( a ) *Product.* Calcium diacetate.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
§ 556.430 Neomycin. ( a ) *Acceptable daily intake (ADI).* The ADI for total residue of neomycin is 6 μg/kg of body weight per day.
( b ) *Tolerances.* The tolerances for neomycin are: ( 1 ) *Cattle.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 7.2 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 3.6 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1.2 ppm.
( iv ) Fat: 7.2 ppm.
( v ) Milk: 0.15 ppm.
( 2 ) *Sheep and goats.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 7.2 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 3.6 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1.2 ppm.
( iv ) Fat: 7.2 ppm.
( v ) Milk: 0.15 ppm.
( 3 ) *Swine.* ( i ) Kidney (target tissue): 7.2 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 3.6 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1.2 ppm.
( iv ) Fat: 7.2 ppm.
( 4 ) *Turkeys.* ( i ) Skin with adhering fat: 7.2 ppm.
( ii ) Liver: 3.6 ppm.
( iii ) Muscle: 1.2 ppm.
( c ) *Related conditions of use.* See §§ 520.1484, 524.1600b, 558.365, and 558.455 of this chapter.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7997

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY GENE TRAPPIER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:09-cr-00340-TLW-1; 4:12-cv-03313-TLW)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Gene Trappier, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank 

Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South 

Carolina, Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Anthony Gene Trappier seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, as 

well as its order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Trappier has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16

- 11

- 01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE )

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT )

AIRPORT ; NON

- FLOOD PROTECTION )

ASSET MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, )

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and )

ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT, )

DIVISION OF NON

- FLOOD ASSETS, )

)

Respondents. )

COMPLAINTANT’S MOTION TO ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE

COME S NOW, Flightline Ground, Inc., Complainant in the above

- captioned matter,

pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19( a ) and moves to alter the briefing schedule in this matter based upon

the following:

1

.

The matter was docketed on February 22, 2011.

2

.

In the Notice of Docketing, the Agency declared that the Complainant would have ten

(10) days after the filing of a n answer by Respondents to file a rebuttal

.2 3

.

On March 15, 2010, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

(“DOTD”) filed a motion for extension of time to file answer.

4

.

Enforcing a briefing a schedule while the DOTD has filed a motion seeking a forty

- five

(45) day extension is counterproductive.

5

.

Until such time as the FAA has determined that all of the necessary and proper parties in

this litigation have been served, the briefing schedule should be stayed.

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays as follows:

That the briefing schedule set forth in the Notic e of Docketing be stayed until such time

as the Federal Aviation Administration is satisfied that all of the necessary and proper parties in

this litigation have been served and have appeared in the action and have served responsive

pleadings.

Respectfully submitted, this 17 th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

____________________________________ Alan Armstrong

Georgia Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing C omplainant’s M otion to A lter B riefing S chedule h as been

served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and

Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.go v and also that a copy of same has been served

upon Charle s Curtis, Esq. by electronic mail at ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com

, counsel for the Non

- Flood

Protection Asset Management Authority (the “authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the

authority be electronic mail at gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com

.

This the 17 th day of March , 201 1

.

s / Alan Armstrong

________________________________ Alan Armstrong

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341
#### Donald Woodstock *v.*Hartford Faience Company

The motion by the defendant to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted. Since the verdict was set aside, a new trial is necessary.

*666
      *Philip 8. Walker,*for the appellee (defendant).

*William F. Gallagher,*with whom was *Howard B. Field III,*for the appellant (plaintiff).

Argued December 2

decided December *5,*1969

The appellant filed a motion for reargument which was denied.
§ 640.5 Testing the blood. All laboratory tests shall be made on a specimen of blood taken from the donor, and these tests shall include the following: ( a ) [Reserved]
( b ) *Determination of blood group.* Each container of Whole Blood shall be classified as to ABO blood group. At least two blood group tests shall be made and the unit shall not be issued until grouping tests by different methods or with different lots of antiserums are in agreement. Only those Anti-A and Anti-B Blood Grouping Reagents licensed under, or that otherwise meet the requirements of, the regulations of this subchapter shall be used, and the technique used shall be that for which the serum is specifically designed to be effective.
( c ) *Determination of the Rh factors.* Each container of Whole Blood shall be classified as to Rh type on the basis of tests done on the sample. The label shall indicate the extent of typing and the results of all tests performed. If the test, using Anti-D Blood Grouping Reagent, is positive, the container may be labeled “Rh Positive.” If the test is negative, the results shall be confirmed by further testing which shall include tests for the “weak D (formerly Du).” Blood may be labeled “Rh Negative” if further testing is negative. Units testing positive after additional more specific testing shall be labeled as “Rh Positive.” Only Anti-Rh Blood Grouping Reagents licensed under, or that otherwise meet the requirements of, this subchapter shall be used, and the technique used shall be that for which the reagent is specifically designed to be effective.
( d ) *Sterility test.* Whole Blood intended for transfusion shall not be tested for sterility by a method that entails entering the final container before the blood is used for transfusion.
( e ) *Inspection.* Whole Blood shall be inspected visually during storage and immediately prior to issue. If the color or physical appearance is abnormal or there is any indication or suspicion of microbial contamination the unit of Whole Blood shall not be issued for transfusion.
( f ) *Test for relevant transfusion-transmitted infections.* Whole Blood shall be tested for evidence of infection due to relevant transfusion-transmitted infections as required under § 610.40 of this chapter.
[38 FR 32089, Nov. 20, 1973, as amended at 50 FR 4138, Jan. 29, 1985; 53 FR 117, Jan. 5, 1988; 53 FR 12764, Apr. 19, 1988; 64 FR 45372, Aug. 19, 1999; 66 FR 1836, Jan. 10, 2001; 66 FR 31165, June 11, 2001; 66 FR 40889, Aug. 6, 2001; 80 FR 29904, May 22, 2015]
§ 701.9 Exemptions from labeling requirements. ( a ) Except as provided by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a shipment or other delivery of a cosmetic which is, in accordance with the practice of the trade, to be processed, labeled, or repacked in substantial quantity at an establishment other than that where originally processed or packed, shall be exempt, during the time of introduction into and movement in interstate commerce and the time of holding in such establishment, from compliance with the labeling requirements of sections 601(a) and 602(b) of the act if: ( 1 ) The person who introduced such shipment or delivery into interstate commerce is the operator of the establishment where such cosmetic is to be processed, labeled, or repacked; or
( 2 ) In case such person is not such operator, such shipment or delivery is made to such establishment under a written agreement, signed by and containing the post office addresses of such person and such operator, and containing such specifications for the processing, labeling, or repacking, as the case may be, of such cosmetic in such establishment as will insure, if such specifications are followed, that such cosmetic will not be adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act upon completion of such processing, labeling, or repacking. Such person and such operator shall each keep a copy of such agreement until 2 years after the final shipment or delivery of such cosmetic from such establishment, and shall make such copies available for inspection at any reasonable hour to any officer or employee of the Department who requests them.
( b ) An exemption of a shipment or other delivery of a cosmetic under paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall, at the beginning of the act of removing such shipment or delivery, or any part thereof, from such establishment, become void ab initio if the cosmetic comprising such shipment, delivery, or part is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act when so removed.
( c ) An exemption of a shipment or other delivery of a cosmetic under paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall become void ab initio with respect to the person who introduced such shipment or delivery into interstate commerce upon refusal by such person to make available for inspection a copy of the agreement, as required by such clause.
( d ) An exemption of a shipment or other delivery of a cosmetic under paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall expire: ( 1 ) At the beginning of the act of removing such shipment or delivery, or any part thereof, from such establishment if the cosmetic comprising such shipment, delivery, or part is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act when so removed; or
( 2 ) Upon refusal by the operator of the establishment where such cosmetic is to be processed, labeled, or repacked, to make available for inspection a copy of the agreement, as required by such clause.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 6967** 

JAMES D. WILKES , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. DR. INERIO ALARCON; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Clarksburg
. Irene M. Keeley , District Judge. ( 1:11

- cv - 00131

- IMK

- JSK )

Submitted : November 21, 2013 Decided: December 9, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. James D. Wilkes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James D. Wilkes appeals the district court ’s order adopting as modified the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2012 ) his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). We have reviewed the record and fi nd no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wilkes v. Alarcon , No. 1:11

- cv - 00131

- IMK

- JSK (N.D. W. Va. May 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate ly presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19

- 0241 V

UNPUBLISHED

T R

,

Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent. Chief Special Master Corcoran

Filed: October 13, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU); Damages Decision Based on Proffer; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine; Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)

Carol L. Gallagher

, Somers Point, NJ, for petitioner.

Camille Michelle Collett

, U

. S

. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

DECISION AWARDING DAMAGES 1

On February 12, 2019

, T R filed a petition for compensation

under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa

- 10, et seq

. 2 (the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered an injury which meets the Table definition for shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) after receiving an influenza vaccine on October 2, 2017 . Petit ion at 1, ¶¶ 2, 3. The case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On October 9, 2020

, a ruling on entitlement was issued , finding P etitioner entitled to compensation for SIRVA . On October 13, 2020

, R espondent filed a p roffer on a ward of compensation (“Proffer”) indicating P etitioner should be awarded $ 34,000.00 for past pain and suffering

. Proffer at 1

. In the Proffer, R espondent represented that P etitioner agrees with the proffered award. Id. Based on the record as a whole, I find that P etitioner

is entitled to an award as stated in the Proffer.

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E

Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the decision will be available to anyone with access to the

internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact
medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99

- 660, 100 Stat. 3755

. Hereinafter, for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subpara graph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012 ).2

Pursuant to the terms stated in the attached Proffer, I award P etitioner a lump sum payment of $ 34,000.00 , representing compensation for her actual pain and suffering in the form of a check payable to P etitioner

. This amount represents compensation for all damages that w ould be available under § 15 (a)

.

The clerk of the court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this

decision. 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran Chief Special Master

3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice renouncing the right to seek review.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6254

MICHAEL WARREN BANNAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-95-1168-R)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Warren Bannan, Appellant Pro Se. Wirt Peebles Marks, IV,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994) (current

version at 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997)). We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of probable

cause to appeal and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Bannan v. Angelone, No. CA-95-1168-R (W.D. Va. Jan.

23, 1997). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 1997 WL 338568 (U.S.

June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). We 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.

DISMISSED
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">State Realty, LLC, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Alevitina Ger, Tenant, and Boris Lankios, Appellant, et al., Undertenants.</font></b></div><br><br>The Litvak Law Firm, PLLC., Igor Litvak, Esq., for appellant.<br><br>Law Offices of Mark J. Fox, Mark J. Fox, Esq., for respondent.<br><br><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Marcia J. Sikowitz, J.), dated December 9, 2015. The order denied a motion by Boris Lankios to vacate so much of a final judgment of the same court entered September 25, 2015 as awarded landlord, upon Lankios's default, the principal sum of $7,968 as against him in a nonpayment summary proceeding.</p><p>ORDERED that the order is reversed, without costs, the motion by Boris Lankios to vacate so much of the final judgment entered September 25, 2015 as awarded landlord, upon Lankios's default, the principal sum of $7,968 as against him is granted and so much of the petition as is against him is dismissed.</p><p>Landlord commenced this nonpayment proceeding against tenant, and against Boris Lankios as tenant's guarantor under the lease. Lankios interposed an answer but did not appear at the nonjury trial. Following the trial, landlord was awarded possession and arrears as against tenant and, upon Lankios's default, was awarded arrears as against him. Lankios's subsequent motion to vacate so much of the final judgment as was entered against him was denied.</p><p>In a summary proceeding, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a debt <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>owed to the landlord by a guarantor of the rent. As no landlord-tenant relationship exists between these parties, the money owed by the guarantor on the guaranty is not "rent" within the meaning of RPAPL 741 (5) (<a href="../2016/2016_50048.htm" target="_blank"><i>see MTC Commons, LLC v Millbrook Training Ctr. &amp; Spa, Ltd.</i>, 50 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 50048[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2016]; <a href="../2010/2010_51901.htm" target="_blank"><i>Triangle Props. # 14, LLC v Beauty Salon Depot/Beauty U.S.A.</i>, 29 Misc 3d 132</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 51901[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2010]). Thus, the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this claim for a debt allegedly owed to landlord by Lankios as guarantor of tenant's rent. </p><p>Accordingly, the order is reversed, the motion by Boris Lankios to vacate so much of the final judgment entered September 25, 2015 as awarded landlord, upon Lankios's default, the principal sum of $7,968 as against him is granted and so much of the petition as is against him is dismissed.</p><p>Weston, J.P., Pesce and Aliotta, JJ., concur.</p><br><br>ENTER:<p>Paul Kenny</p><br>Chief Clerk<br><br>Decision Date: April 07, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>