alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered July 15, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00737-CV

JOHN CRUZ, Appellant

V.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-13-04113-B

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the clerk’s record and supplemental clerk’s record in this case. 

The appellant’s notice of appeal states appellant wishes to appeal the trial court’s order signed 

March 3, 2015 granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Although the clerk’s record 

includes an order signed March 3, 2015 denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, the 

clerk’s record does not include the March 3, 2015 order granting appellee’s motion for summary 

judgment. Accordingly, we ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to prepare and certify 

within five (5) days of the date of this order a supplemental clerk’s record including the trial 

court’s March 3, 2015 order granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

$3,755.00 US CURRENCY (ZACHARY

VAN PHIFER, JR.),

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

 § 

No. 08-10-00008-CV

Appeal from the

9th Judicial District Court

of Montgomery County, Texas 

(TC# 09-03-03077-CV) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant has complied with the requirements of TEX.R.APP.P.

42.1(a)(1), and having considered the motion, we conclude it should be granted. Therefore, we

GRANT Appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. Costs will be taxed against Appellant. See

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

February 25, 2010

DAVID WELLINGTON CHEW, Chief Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.
A pril14, 2015 

Hearing Docket Oerk 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Building #2Wl000 

Washington, DC 20591 

Re: Arash Durrani 

Case #2012WP050039 

Dear FAA: 

SACKS 

Sl\C'Ks 

AlTORt-;EY~ Ar LAW 

Please be advised that this office does not represent Arash Durrani. His attorney can be 

reached at: 

Richard G. Novak, Esq. 

65 N. Raymond Ave. 

Suite 320 

Pasadena, CA 911 03 

Please direct all correspondences to Mr. Novak's office. Also, please be advised that it 

is my understanding that Mr. Durrani is presently incarcerated in federal custody 

a gam. 

Yours very truly, 

;<)>;-~;/ 

.. M:: '>Y'/~·-7 .~···· ~~ ~ 

- '"~"' Stefan Eric Sacks, Esq. 

cc. Lierre Green, Esq. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

P.O. Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

1901 AVENUE OF THE STARS, SUITE 200• LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067·323.272.7877 

Sacks & Sacks is a Partnership consisting of Professional Corporations
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00443-CR

Deborah Ann Brooks a/k/a Deborah 

Ann Bradley

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 355th District Court

of Hood County (CR10794)

May 28, 2015

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Sue Walker___________________

 Justice Sue Walker
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00658-CV

A. B. and J. H., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY 

NO. 284,960-B, THE HONORABLE JACK WELDON JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant J.H. filed his notice of appeal on October 3, 2017. The appellate record 

was complete October 23, 2017, making appellant’s brief due November 13, 2017. On 

November 13, 2017, counsel for J.H. filed a motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief.

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting 

extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellants’ brief 

no later than November 27, 2017. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required 

to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on November 14, 2017.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,388
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,971
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    566,015
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               626,198
<PP&E>                                         661,234
<DEPRECIATION>                               (243,074)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,055,221
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          650,086
<BONDS>                                        269,113
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           169
<OTHER-SE>                                   (357,396)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,055,221
<SALES>                                      1,612,979
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,612,979
<CGS>                                        1,187,279
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,187,279
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               456,057
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,433
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (74,597)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (74,897)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (74,897)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.43)
        

</TABLE>
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 15248

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12

- cv

- 02572

- AT
NATHAN E. OHUCHE,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

BANK OF AMERICA , N.A., BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f.k.a. Countrywide Home Loan Servicing LP, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIO N, MCCALLA RAYMER LLC,

Defendants

- Appellees,
MICHAEL ALLENGOOD, Individually,

Defendant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (June 17, 2016) Case: 14-15248 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 1 of 22 Before HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges , and MORENO , * District Judge

.
PER CURIAM:

After review of the record a nd the parties’ briefs, with the benefit of oral

argument, and for the reasons fully explored at oral argument, we find no

reversible error in (i) the district court’s October 22, 2014 o rder denying plaintiff

Ohuche’ s motion for reconsideration ( of the district court’s September 10, 2014

order dismissing certain claims, remanding certain state law claims to the Superior
Court of Fulton County, and denying Ohuche’s motion to amend his complaint) , and (ii) “all other orders and judgments of the [di strict] court.”
As aptly stated by the district court, “after numerous attempts to amend his
Complaint and refine his theory of liability,” Ohuche appears to “ have no other
valid claims, or at least no valid federal claims that are not time

- barred.” Thus,
under these circumstances, Ohuche’ s “ remaining state law claims would be best
litigated in state court, where this case originated.”

AFFIRMED.

* Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 14-15248 Date Filed: 06/17/2016 Page: 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter II
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 78 FR 60697, Oct. 2, 2013.

§ 240.6 Provisional credit; first examination; declination; final payment. ( a ) Any credit issued by a Federal Reserve Bank to a financial institution shall be a provisional credit until Treasury completes first examination of the check, or as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) Treasury shall have the right as a drawee to complete first examination of checks presented for payment, to reconcile checks, and, when appropriate, to make a declination on any check.
( c ) Treasury will decline payment on a check when first examination by Treasury establishes that: ( 1 ) The check has a material defect or alteration;
( 2 ) The check bears a forged or unauthorized drawer's signature;
( 3 ) Treasury has already received presentment of a substitute check, electronic check, or original check relating to the check being presented, such that Treasury is being requested to make payment on a check it has already paid; or Treasury is being requested to make payment on a check that is not valid due to a stop payment or other cancellation.
( 4 ) In the case of an electronic check, Treasury cannot determine whether the check contains a material defect or alteration without examining the original check or a better quality image of the check and Treasury is on notice of a question of law or fact about whether the check is properly payable; or
( 5 ) In the case of a substitute check, Treasury has a warranty or indemnity claim arising under 12 CFR 229.52 or 229.53.
( d ) Treasury shall have a reasonable amount of time to complete first examination. However, except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, if Treasury has not declined payment on a check within 60 days after the check is presented to a Federal Reserve Processing Center for payment, Treasury will be deemed to have made final payment on the check.
( e ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (d) of this section, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3328(a)(2), if, upon presentment for payment, Treasury is on notice of a question of law or fact about whether a check is properly payable, Treasury may defer final payment until the question is settled.
( f ) If a Federal Reserve Bank debits a financial institution's reserve account as a result of an erroneous declination, Treasury will promptly refund the amount of the payment.
[69 FR 61568, Oct. 19, 2004, as amended at 88 FR 74889, Nov. 1, 2023]
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrell W. SAMUEL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6289.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 30, 2002.

Decided June 6, 2002.

Darrell W. Samuel, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Darrell W. Samuel appeals the district court’s denial of a postjudgment motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). The district court originally dismissed the action on its merits, and we dismissed the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Samuel,*1 Fed. Appx. 145, 2001 WL 15316 (4th Cir.2001) (unpublished), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 122 S.Ct. 298, 151 L.Ed.2d 220 (2001).

We review denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of discretion. *United States v. Holland,*214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir.2000). Having reviewed the district court’s order denying the motion, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested relief. Therefore, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration # 11607 and # 11608]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (FEMA-1813-DR), dated 01/05/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storm and Flooding.                    

*Incident Period:*                         12/11/2008 and continuing.                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         01/16/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         03/06/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         10/05/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, dated 01/05/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Essex, Middlesex.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E9-1963 Filed 1-29-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                         4,091
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         193,829
<DEPRECIATION>                                 114,266
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 83,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          107,276
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       4,635
<OTHER-SE>                                     (54,097)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   83,654
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               11,886
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,886)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,886)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,886)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
- Office Home
- Developments
- General Resources
- Family Law
- Dispute Settlement
- Judicial Assistance
- Commercial Law
- Advisory Committee on Private International Law

HomeOffice of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law...Advisory Committee on Private International Law

# 									Advisory Committee on Private International Law							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law

The Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL) is established under the general authority of the Secretary of State and the Department of State as set forth in Title 22 of the United States Code, including sections 269g, 2651a, and 2656 of that Title. The purpose of the ACPIL is to serve the Department in a solely advisory capacity with respect to significant issues of private international law arising or likely to arise in the work of international organizations of which the United States is a Member State, or in international bodies in whose work the United States has an interest, or in the foreign relations of the United States.

The ACPIL consists of members of private sector organizations; bar associations; national legal organizations; and federal and state governmental and judicial interests concerned with private international law matters. The Legal Adviser of the State Department typically serves as Chair of the ACPIL. The ACPIL generally holds an annual public meeting. The ACPIL also has study groups that are established to provide advice on specialized subjects of private international law. Further information on the ACPIL and a listing of its members can be found on the website of the database of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (http://www.facadatabase.gov).

### Upcoming Meeting

None currently scheduled.

### Summaries of Public Meetings

Meeting summaries from 2017-2019 can be found on the archive site.

Back to Top
Internet Capital Group 2007 Performance Plan


 Exhibit 10.3 
 Internet Capital Group 
 2007 Performance Plan 
 The Board of Directors of Internet Capital Group, Inc. (together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, the “Company”) hereby establishes this 2007 Performance
Plan (this “Plan”). The purpose of the Plan is to advance the interests of the Company’s stockholders by providing certain employees with bonus payments upon achievement of Company-specific 2007 goals and individual goals, as well as
to help the Company attract and retain key employees. The Company’s executive officers and other regular, full-time employees are eligible to participate in the Plan. 
 The Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Committee”) will administer and interpret the Plan. All decisions and determinations of the Committee with respect to the Plan will
be final and binding on all parties. 
 The Company’s 2007 goals include quantitative and qualitative goals. The relative weighting of each element of
the Company-specific goals is described below. 
 Eighty percent (80%) of the bonus potential related to Company goals is tied to accomplishment of
quantitative goals. Realization of specified revenue goals for the Company’s Core partner companies, Creditex Group, Inc. and GoIndustry plc (collectively, the “Key Companies”) accounts for thirty percent (30%) of the potential
bonus award and achievement of specified EBITDA performance for the Key Companies accounts for ten percent (10%) of the potential bonus award. Twenty percent (20%) of the potential bonus award is tied to attainment of a specified increase
in the aggregate value of the Key Companies and twenty percent (20%) of the potential bonus award relates to the Company’s deployment of capital and strategic monetization of assets. 
 Twenty percent (20%) of the bonus is tied to execution against the following qualitative goals: (1) overall execution of strategic initiatives,
(2) improvement in communicating the value of the Company’s underlying assets, (3) building the ICG brand, (4) performance and competency of partner company executives, (5) reaction to unforeseen market/business conditions,
(6) effective management of the Company’s holdings in Blackboard, Inc. and (7) exploration of an expansion of the ICG platform. 
 Following
the end of the Company’s fiscal year, the Committee will evaluate the Company’s 2007 performance and determine the extent to which the Company’s 2007 goals and individual goals were achieved. Based upon this assessment, the Committee
will award bonuses in accordance with the terms of this Plan.
[Cite as State ex rel. Epps v. Saffold , 2012-Ohio-4612.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98684



## STATE EX REL. CARLTON EPPS

RELATOR

vs.


## JUDGE SHIRLEY STRICKLAND SAFFOLD

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Procedendo Motion No. 457344

Order No. 458923

RELEASE DATE: October 3, 2012FOR RELATOR

Carlton Epps 2000 South Avon Belden Road Grafton, Ohio 44044

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant Prosecuting Attorney The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street, 8 th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113JAMES J. SWEENEY, P.J.:

{¶1} On July 17, 2012, the relator, Carlton Epps, commenced this procedendo

action against the respondent, Judge Shirley Strickland Saffold, to compel the judge to

state the number of days he spent in jail in the underlying case, State v. Epps , Cuyahoga

C. P. No. CR-546428. On February 14, 2012, and June 20, 2012, he filed motions for

jail-time credit with the respondent. On August 1, 2012, the respondent moved for

summary judgment on the grounds of mootness. Attached to the dispositive motion

was a copy of certified journal entry, file-stamped July 24, 2012, in the underlying case,

granting Epps 66 days of credit. This journal entry establishes that Epps has received

his requested relief and that the action is, therefore, moot. State ex rel. Corder v.

Wilson , 68 Ohio App.3d 567, 589 N.E.2d 113 (10th Dist. 1991). Epps never filed a

response to the motion for summary judgment.

{¶2} Accordingly, the court grants the respondent’s motion for summary

judgment and denies the application for a writ of procedendo. Each side to bear their

own costs. This court directs the clerk of court to serve all parties notice of this

judgment and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶3} Writ denied.

JAMES J. SWEENEY, PRESIDING JUDGE

COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR