alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7141

RONALD STEVEN PHILLIP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RANDY LEE, Warden, Caledonia Institution, Respondent - Appellee, and NORTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-99-243-1) Submitted: November 9, 2000 Decided: November 15, 2000 Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul M. Green, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, for Appellee.* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on July 20, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on July 21, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Ronald Steven Phillip appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Respondents and denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and findno reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Phillip v. Lee , No. CA-99-243-1 (M.D.N.C. July 21, 2000). * 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
#### IVER T. LUND v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.1

July 3, 1914.

Nos. 18,653—(193).

Damages not excessive.

The evidence sustains the verdict for plaintiff, and the damages awarded are not excessive.

Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $500. The case was tried before Bardwell, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the action, and a jury which returned a verdict for $175 in favor of plaintiff. Erom an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*Cobb, Wheelwright & Dille*and *H. C. Mackall,*for appellant.

*Stiles & Devaney*and *D. C.*Edwards, for respondent.

1

 Reported in 148 N. W. 112.

Bunn, J.

Action to recover damages to horses shipped by plaintiff over defendant’s lines from Appleton, Minnesota, to Buxton, North Dakota. There was a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $175. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial was denied and defendant appealed.

*260The assignments of error question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, and the amount of the damages.

There was the usual evidence of the fine condition of the horses when loaded for shipment, and of their injured condition when unloaded at destination. In addition the horses were held upon the car at the end of the transit without food or water two hours longer than is permitted by the Federal statute. Defendant concedes that this last fact alone makes a *prima facie*case of negligence. There was also some evidence, not very definite or persuasive, of unusual jolts and bumps *en route.*The evidence was such that the verdict of the jury, sustained by the trial court, necessarily concludes us. We are clearly not warranted in saying that the *prima facie*case made was rebutted by defendant, or in finding that the amount of damages fixed by the jury is in excess of what the evidence as to damage warranted.

Order affirmed.
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE 901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG. 100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

October 15, 2015

Mr. Alan L. Hamilton

9902 Childress Drive
Austin, TX 78753

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Karen L. Landinger Cokinos, Bosien and Young

10999 W Ih 10 Ste 800 San Antonio, TX 78230

- 1349

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 1 3

- 15

- 00307

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. D

- 1

- GN

- 13

- 001230 Style: Alan L. Hamilton, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Hamilton

Family Trust, and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Maurine P.
Hamilton v. Daniel Davila, III

Enclosed please find the opinion and judgment issued by the Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.

cc: 353 rd District Court (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)

Hon. Velva L. Price , Travis County District Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E

- M AIL) Hon. Billy Ray Stubblefield , Presiding Judge, Third Administrative Judicial Region (DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL)
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00624

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 30215

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

On August 5, 2014, relator, Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes, filed a motion for temporary relief

requesting that the Court stay all trial court proceedings while the Court considers relator’s

petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s motion for temporary re lief is denied

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ J a ne Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 6, 2014
Home1992 Treaties and Agreements...Mongolia (92-327) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Property of Diplomatic Missions

# 									Mongolia (92-327) – Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Property of Diplomatic Missions							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

March 27, 1992

Property:  Diplomatic Missions

Memorandum of understanding signed at Washington March 27, 1992; entered into force March 27, 1992. With attachments.
Download Agreements						 [5 MB]

Tags

MongoliaPropertyTreatiesTreaties and International Agreements

Back to Top
it has been rendered. 

MOLLY FRAN 

JUSTICE 

• 

Order entered December 12, 2012 

In The 

Court of ZWealks 

fiftb 1Btotritt of Zrexag at Matta5 

No. 05-12-00589-CV 

GREYHOUND LINES, INC., Appellant 

V. 

ASHLEY REEDY, ET AL., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 193rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 09-09239 

ORDER 

The Court has before it the parties' November 21, 2012 joint motion for partial dismissal 

of appeal. The Court GRANTS the motion in part, ABATES this appeal and REFERS the 

motion to the trial court so that the trial court may render a take-nothing judgment as to Ms. 

Reedy. The Court ORDERS the parties to provide the court with a copy of such judgment once
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 1744** 

CONNIE HOWELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
KELLY SERVICES, INC.; IBM , Defendants

– Appellees , and

MONICA MURRAY; DAVID DUNCAN; BEN KOTEY; JONATHAN OKAI , Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Liam O ’ Grady , District Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 00821

- LO

- TCB )

Submitted : December 18, 2015 Decided: December 23, 2015

Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Connie Howell , Appellant Pro Se. Yoora Pak , WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP , McLean, Virginia; Matthew Frederick Nieman , JACKSON LEWIS PC , Reston, Virginia, for Appel lee s .2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:
Connie Howell seeks to appeal the district court ’ s order granting the Defendants’ motions to enforce a settlement
agreement. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the dis trict court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
The district court ’ s order was entered on the docket on
May 1, 2015. The notice of appeal was filed on June 30, 2015.

Because Howell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we
dis miss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.
DISMISSED
§ 67.101 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations of this subpart apply to the peer review of contracts under: ( 1 ) Title IX of the Public Health Service Act to support research, evaluation, demonstration, and dissemination projects, including conferences, on health care services and systems for the delivery of such services; and development of clinical practice guidelines, quality standards, performance measures, and review criteria.
( 2 ) Section 1142 of the Social Security Act to support research on the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures, including, but not limited to, evaluations of alternative services and procedures; projects to improve methods and data bases for outcomes and effectiveness research; dissemination of research information and clinical practice guidelines, as well as quality standards, performance measures, and review criteria; conferences; and research on dissemination methods.
( b ) The regulations of this subpart also contain provisions respecting confidentiality of research data, control of data, and availability of information.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 212 

To permit members of the House of Representatives to donate used computer 

equipment to public elementary and secondary schools designated by 

the members. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. SERRANO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To permit members of the House of Representatives to donate used computer equipment to public elementary and 

secondary schools designated by the members. 

1 SECTION 1. PERMITTING MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF REP2 RESENTATIVES TO DONATE USED COMPUTER 

3 EQUIPMENT TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 104(a)(3) of the Legisla5 tive Branch Appropriations Act, 1987 (as incorporated by 

6 reference in section 101(j) of Public Law 99–500 and 

7 Public Law 99–591) (2 U.S.C. 117e(3)) is amended to 

8 read as follows: 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 212 IH

1 ‘‘(3)(A) At the request of a member of the House 

2 of Representatives, in the case of equipment consisting of 

3 computers and related peripheral tools previously used by 

4 the member, the Clerk may donate the equipment to a 

5 public elementary or secondary school (as defined in sec6 tion 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

7 Act of 1965) without regard to whether the donation 

8 meets the requirements of the second sentence of para9 graph (2). 

10 ‘‘(B) At the request of the member who previously 

11 used the equipment, if the Clerk donates equipment under 

12 this paragraph, the Clerk shall donate the equipment to 

13 a school designated by the member.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 subsection (a) shall take effect October 1, 2007. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
AFS-11-085-E 

Jan 06 2011 

 Exemption No. 9860A 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2009-0266 

Mr. Hal W. Raber 

Director of Operations 

Executive Jet Management, Inc. 

4556 Airport Road 

Cincinnati, OH 45226 

Dear Mr. Raber: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 9860. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated December 7, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Executive Jet Management, Inc. (EJM) for an extension of Exemption No. 9860. 

That exemption from § 135.225(f) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows 

EJM to make instrument flight rules (IFR) takeoffs from foreign and military airports when 

the visibility is less than 1 statute mile or make an instrument approach when the visibility is 

less than 1⁄2 mile. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EJM. 
 2

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 9860 

remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the 

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 9860 to April 30, 2013 unless 

sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 9860 remain the same. This letter must be 

attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 9860. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John M. Allen 

Director, Flight Standards Service
§ 68.4 Who is eligible to participate? To be eligible to participate in the NIH LRPs, individuals must: ( a ) Meet the eligibility requirements specified in § 68.3 of this part;
( b ) Not be ineligible for participation as specified in § 68.5 of this part;
( c ) Engage in qualified research for the contractual period;
( d ) Engage in such research for the percentage of time specified for the particular LRP; and
( e ) Comply with all other terms and conditions of the applicable Loan Repayment Program.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

UNDER

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

THE COAST
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.

Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for
the Quarter ended September 30, 2006

The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Quarterly Report), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 14, 2006



/s/ THOMAS R. MCGUIREThomas R. McGuireChairman and Chief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 2

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear at 68 FR 14337, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 2.164 Correcting deficiencies in affidavit or declaration.

(a) If the affidavit or declaration is filed within the time periods set forth in section 8 of the Act, deficiencies may be corrected after notification from the Office, as follows:

(1) *Correcting deficiencies in affidavits or declarations timely filed within the periods set forth in sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(2) of the Act.* If the affidavit or declaration is timely filed within the relevant filing period set forth in section 8(a)(1) or section 8(a)(2) of the Act, deficiencies may be corrected before the end of this filing period without paying a deficiency surcharge. Deficiencies may be corrected after the end of this filing period with payment of the deficiency surcharge required by section 8(c) of the Act and § 2.6.

(2) *Correcting deficiencies in affidavits or declarations filed during the grace period.* If the affidavit or declaration is filed during the six-month grace period provided by section 8(a)(3) of the Act, deficiencies may be corrected before the expiration of the grace period without paying a deficiency surcharge. Deficiencies may be corrected after the expiration of the grace period with payment of the deficiency surcharge required by section 8(c) of the Act and § 2.6.

(b) If the affidavit or declaration is not filed within the time periods set forth in section 8 of the Act, the registration will be cancelled.

[75 FR 35976, June 24, 2010, as amended at 76 FR 69133, Nov. 8, 2011]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41178

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JONATHAN ZAPATA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-356-1

Before CLEMENT, PRADO, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jonathan Zapata

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zapata has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41178 Document: 00512751399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
No. 13-41178

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-41178 Document: 00512751399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/29/2014
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Notes:

1. In Patent and Trademark Office publications and usage the part number is omitted from the numbers of §§ 1.1 to 1.352 and the numbers to the right of the decimal point correspond with the respective rule numbers.

2. For nomenclature changes to part 1, see 68 FR 14335, Mar. 25, 2003; 87 FR 68904, Nov. 17, 2022.

#### § 1.182 Questions not specifically provided for.

All situations not specifically provided for in the regulations of this part will be decided in accordance with the merits of each situation by or under the authority of the Director, subject to such other requirements as may be imposed, and such decision will be communicated to the interested parties in writing. Any petition seeking a decision under this section must be accompanied by the petition fee set forth in § 1.17(f).

[69 FR 56544, Sept. 21, 2004]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
Motion Granted and Order filed August 13, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 01010

- CR

____________ LUIS GILBERT ABREG O , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 262nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1578737



### ORDER
Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Appellant filed a motion requesting to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Gain ous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). The motion is granted.Accordingly, we hereby direct the Judge of the 262nd District Court to afford

appellant an opportunity to view the trial record in accordance with local procedure;
that the clerk o f that court furnish the record to appellant on or before August 28,
2019 ; that the clerk of that court certify to this court the date on which delivery of the record to appellant is made; and that appellant file his pro se brief with this court
within thi rty days of that date.

PER CURIAM