alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-12-0131-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

FEBRUARY 22, 2013

WESLEY WREN MASSEY, 

Appellant

v.

IRENE GONZALES MASSEY, 

Appellee

_____________________________

FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. B36869-0910; HON. EDWARD LEE SELF, PRESIDING

Memorandum Opinion

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Appellant Wesley Wren Massey appeals from an order of the trial court denying 

his motion to modify or rescind an order to withdraw funds from his inmate trust 

account.1

 On March 16, 2012, the trial court ordered that $231 in court costs2 incurred 

in his divorce action be paid out of his inmate trust account. The lawsuit was dismissed 

 1

The accounts are no longer referred to as trust accounts under the statute. 

2

The trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to modify or rescind the order to withdraw 

funds states that this amount represents “court costs.” Furthermore, appellant was acting pro se in the 

lawsuit so there was no court-appointed attorney. 
2

for want of prosecution. On appeal, appellant argues that 1) the trial court had no 

authority to order the withdrawal of funds when there was no active cause number, and 

2) the trial court erred in ordering the withdrawal of funds in excess of the percentage 

amount allowed under § 501.014(e) of the Government Code. We affirm the order. 

We review the trial court’s decision to grant or deny a challenge to a withdrawal 

notification for an abuse of discretion. Owen v. State, 352 S.W.3d 542, 545 (Tex. App. 

–Amarillo 2011, no pet.). In appellant’s motion to modify or rescind the order to 

withdraw funds, he asserted no legal basis for modification or rescission. To preserve 

error on appeal, the complaint must state the grounds for the ruling sought with 

sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint. TEX. R. APP. P. 

33.1(a)(1)(A). The failure to do so waives error.

Appellant did request in his motion that the trial court consolidate the order with 

its withdrawal orders in two criminal cases. As he explains on appeal, he wants only 

one deduction of 10% for all three cases out of his account for each deposit made.

Section 501.014(e) does not place a limitation on the percentage of withdrawals that 

can be made. Nor has appellant cited us to legal authority creating such a limitation. 

Accordingly, we overrule appellant's issues and affirm the trial court’s withdrawal 

order.

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice
# C_2006091EN.01003601.xml

| 19.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 91/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/36

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4121 — Allianz Group/Sofinim/United Broadcast Facilities)

(2006/C 91/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4121. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4121. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### Geneva BLANSIT et al., v. CORNELIUS AND RUSH COAL COMPANY et al.

Civ. 1993.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Feb. 6, 1980.

HOLMES, Judge.

The prior opinion of this court has been reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court’s opinion of January 11, 1980, 380 So.2d 859, this cause is reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court of DeKalb County.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.
# C_2006108EN.01000801.xml

| 6.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos lodged on 3 March 2006, Carrefour — Marinopoulos v Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Tripoleos

(Case C-126/06)

(2006/C 108/13)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Diikitiko Protodikio Tripoleos

Date lodged: 3 March 2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Carrefour — Marinopoulos AE

Applicant:

Defendant: Nomarkhiaki Aftodiikisi Tripoleos

Defendant:

Questions referred

| (a) | Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’ products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Does the requirement for the prior licence referred to in the grounds of the decision in order to market ‘bake-off’ products constitute a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 28 of the EC Treaty?

| (b) | If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the characteristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C 325/00 Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect consumers and public health from any deterioration in the bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) 3852/2002)? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

If it were considered to be a quantitative restriction, does the requirement for a prior licence in order to make bread pursue a purely qualitative objective, that is to say establish a mere qualitative differentiation with regard to the characteristics of the bread marketed (of smell, taste, colour and the appearance of the crust) and its nutritional value (judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C 325/00 Commission v Germany [2002] ECR I-9977) or does it seek to protect consumers and public health from any deterioration in the bread's quality (Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State) 3852/2002)?

Commission

Germany

| (c) | On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the free trading of those products between Member States? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

On the basis that the abovementioned restriction concerns both domestic and Community ‘bake-off’ products without distinction, is there a link with Community law and is that restriction capable of affecting, whether directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, the free trading of those products between Member States?

---
#### Raymond D. BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 74-545.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 14, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Brevard County; A. J. Hoseman, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[114th Congress Public Law 176]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 430]]

Public Law 114-176
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, as the Second Lt. Ellen 
 Ainsworth Memorial Post Office. <<NOTE: June 13, 2016 -  [H.R. 4046]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SECOND LT. ELLEN AINSWORTH MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 220 East Oak Street, Glenwood City, Wisconsin, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Second Lt. Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Second Lt. 
Ellen Ainsworth Memorial Post Office''.

    Approved June 13, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4046:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Mar. 1, considered and passed House.
            May 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### Monda BAKER, Petitioner, v. Harry P. BAKER, Respondent.

No. 45436.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 15, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 5, 1974.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and BOYD, McCAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
#### BARBARA M. SMITH AND WILLIAM SMITH, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Submitted May 26, 1939

Decided September 22, 1939.

For the appellants, *Meyer L. Sakin.*

For the respondent, *Henry H. Fryling (Henry J. Sorenson,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of nonsuit in an action in tort for negligence. The nonsuit was rested upon the hypothesis of an utter lack of evidence tending to show the negligence charged, *i. e.,*defendant’s failure to provide a reasonably safe place for the female plaintiff, a passenger, to alight from one of defendant’s buses, as the result of which she fell and suffered injury. Her husband sued *per quod.*

We are not called upon to review the evidence. There was no exception to the judicial action thus complained of. Moreover, we deem the nonsuit to have been proper on the authority of *Meelhein*v. *Public Service Co-ordinated Transport,*121 *N. J. L.*163.

Judgment affirmed.

*For affirmance*— The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Pbrskie, Porter, Heteield, Dear, Wells, WolesKeil, Raeeerty, Hague, JJ. 15.

*For reversal*— None.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3251 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3251

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the applicability 
                  of the first-time farmer exception.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 16, 1996

Mr. Lightfoot (for himself, Mr. Leach, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Ganske, and Mr. 
   Latham) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the applicability 
                  of the first-time farmer exception.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF FIRST-TIME FARMER EXCEPTION.

    (a) Acquisition From Related Person Allowed.--Section 147(c)(2) of 
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exception for first-time 
farmers) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(G) Acquisition from related person.--For 
                purposes of this paragraph and section 144(a), the 
                acquisition by a first-time farmer of land or personal 
                property from a related person (within the meaning of 
                section 144(a)(3)) shall not be treated as an 
                acquisition from a related person.''
    (b) Substantial Farmland Definition Modified.--Clause (i) of 
section 147(c)(2)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 
substantial farmland) is amended by striking ``15 percent of the 
median'' and inserting ``30 percent of the average''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2005271EN.01002301.xml

| 29.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/23

---

Action brought on 12 August 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-316/05)

(2005/C 271/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

Applicant(s):

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Defendant(s):

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul Regulation No 832/2005; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Regulation No 832/2005; (1)

1

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward the same pleas in law and main arguments that it has put forward in Case T-300/05.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 138, 1.6.2005, p. 3).

1

---
HomeDSS Press Releases...Former U.S. Government Employee Pleads Guilty to Sex Offenses

# 									Former U.S. Government Employee Pleads Guilty to Sex Offenses							

DSS Releases

November 7, 2023

For Immediate Release – November 7, 2023

Click here to read more about this

 

Tags

CaliforniaCrimeDistrict of ColumbiaDSS ReleasesUnited States

Back to Top
# C_2006011EN.01000902.xml

| 17.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 11/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4031 — JCI/SAFT/JV)

(2006/C 11/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4031. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M4031. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000727087     
<NAME> First Capital Institutional Real Estate, Ltd. -- 2   
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                  12,676,400
<SECURITIES>                                25,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               88,100
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        12,789,500
<PP&E>                                  46,126,300
<DEPRECIATION>                          12,226,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          52,547,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    1,883,100
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              50,557,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            52,547,700
<SALES>                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         5,551,100
<CGS>                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            1,933,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           248,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          2,365,600
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      2,365,600
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                             2,365,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                23.70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                23.70
        
                                  




</TABLE>
#### Lucius G. HILL, Appellant, v. The COMMONWEALTH COMPANY, a partnership, Appellee.

No. 79-2337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 13, 1981.

Magill & Reid, Palm Beach, and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

David F. Holmes, Law Offices of Allan Jay Bravérman, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of plaintiff in an action on a promissory note. The final judgment awarded the amount of the note plus attorneys’ fees. We reverse.

The defendant’s answer and affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment show that issues of fact remained unresolved. The judgment is reversed in accordance with *Brady v. Zimmerman,*246 So.2d 637 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); and *Evans v. United Benefit Fire Insurance Company of Omaha, Nebraska,*192 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

LETTS, C. J., and DOWNEY and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3221 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3221

To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit the imposition of 
certain additional fees on consumers in connection with any electronic 
  fund transfer which is initiated by the consumer from an electronic 
  terminal operated by a person other than the financial institution 
    holding the consumer's account and which utilizes a national or 
                    regional communication network.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 1996

 Mr. Sanders introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Electronic Fund Transfer Act to prohibit the imposition of 
certain additional fees on consumers in connection with any electronic 
  fund transfer which is initiated by the consumer from an electronic 
  terminal operated by a person other than the financial institution 
    holding the consumer's account and which utilizes a national or 
                    regional communication network.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic Fund Transfer Fees Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN FEES.

    The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq.) is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating sections 918, 919, 920, and 921 as 
        sections 919, 920, 921, and 922, respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after section 917 the following new 
        section:

``SEC. 918. FEES.

    ``In the case of any electronic fund transfer which--
            ``(1) is initiated by a consumer from an electronic 
        terminal operated by a person other than the financial 
        institution holding the account of the consumer; and
            ``(2) utilizes a national or regional communication network 
        to effect the transaction between such person and the financial 
        institution holding the account of the consumer,
no fee may be imposed on the consumer with respect to such transaction 
by the person operating the electronic terminal at which the transfer 
is initiated.''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2006018EN.01002301.xml

| 25.1.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 18/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 18/23

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3910 — Rockwood/Süd-Chemie)

(2006/C 18/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 December 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3910. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3910. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---