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

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-15-00111-CV 

LUIS S. LAGAITE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

GREGORY C. BOLAND, ET AL., APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 251st District Court 

Potter County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 97,061-C, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Presiding 

 

April 23, 2015 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

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

Appellant, Luis S. Lagaite filed an appeal in the above-referenced cause without 

paying the requisite filing fee. By letter dated April 1, 2015, this court directed Lagaite to 

pay the filing fee or file an affidavit of indigence, and if indigent, he must comply with 

Chapter 14 by filing 1) an affidavit describing his previous filings and 2) a certified copy

of his inmate trust account. He was also told that the appeal would be dismissed if he

did not comply. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002 

(West Supp. 2014) (stating that Chapter 14 applies to appeals brought by an inmate in 

an appellate court); Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

Dist.] 2013, no pet.). In his response, Lagaite filed an affidavit of indigence and a 
2

certified copy of his inmate account. However, in his affidavit of previous filings, he 

failed to state the operative facts pertinent to the ten suits he did list. Inclusion of those 

operative facts is required by § 14.004 (a) (2) (A) of the Civil Practice and Remedies 

Code.

He also stated in the affidavit that: “Due to the fact that appellees have continued 

to withheld [sic] all my legal documents, pleadings drafts [sic], and personal property 

appellant cannot acertain [sic] or remember the actual correct dates, names and filing of 

previous lawsuits of the other 12 or more that he has filed that are within his legal 

documents.” Whether he requested the return of those documents to comply with our 

previous directive went unmentioned. Similarly unmentioned is why he did not supply 

us with the information about the twelve other lawsuits that he could remember and their 

disposition. 

Given the foregoing admissions, his affidavit fails to comply with the 

requirements of § 14.004. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004 (West 

Supp. 2014). And, the requirement to tender an affidavit complying with Chapter 14 of 

the Civil Practice and Remedies Code is mandatory; the failure to do so is grounds for 

dismissal of the lawsuit. Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d at 340; see also In re Anthony 

G. Hereford, Jr., No. 07-14-00348-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 11521, at *1-2 (Tex. 

App.—Amarillo October 17, 2014, orig. proceeding) (holding that the failure to comply 

with Chapter 14 subjected the mandamus proceeding to dismissal). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.1

Brian Quinn 

Chief Justice

 

1

Pending before the court is Lagaite’s “Motion to Make the January 15, 2015 Hearing Part of the 

Appeal,” we deny the motion as moot.
§ 23.450 Athletics. ( a ) *General.* No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, be treated differently from another person, or otherwise be discriminated against in any interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics offered by a recipient, and no recipient shall provide any such athletics separately on such basis.
( b ) *Separate teams.* Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, a recipient may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport. However, where a recipient operates or sponsors a team in a particular sport for members of one sex but operates or sponsors no such team for members of the other sex, and athletic opportunities for members of that sex have previously been limited, members of the excluded sex must be allowed to try out for the team offered unless the sport involved is a contact sport. For the purposes of these Title IX regulations, contact sports include boxing, wrestling, rugby, ice hockey, football, basketball, and other sports the purpose or major activity of which involves bodily contact.
( c ) *Equal opportunity.* ( 1 ) A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics shall provide equal athletic opportunity for members of both sexes. In determining whether equal opportunities are available, the designated agency official will consider, among other factors: ( i ) Whether the selection of sports and levels of competition effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of members of both sexes;
( ii ) The provision of equipment and supplies;
( iii ) Scheduling of games and practice time;
( iv ) Travel and per diem allowance;
( v ) Opportunity to receive coaching and academic tutoring;
( vi ) Assignment and compensation of coaches and tutors;
( vii ) Provision of locker rooms, practice, and competitive facilities;
( viii ) Provision of medical and training facilities and services;
( ix ) Provision of housing and dining facilities and services;
( x ) Publicity.
( 2 ) For purposes of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, unequal aggregate expenditures for members of each sex or unequal expenditures for male and female teams if a recipient operates or sponsors separate teams will not constitute noncompliance with this section, but the designated agency official may consider the failure to provide necessary funds for teams for one sex in assessing equality of opportunity for members of each sex.
( d ) *Adjustment period.* A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the elementary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than one year from September 29, 2000. A recipient that operates or sponsors interscholastic, intercollegiate, club, or intramural athletics at the secondary or postsecondary school level shall comply fully with this section as expeditiously as possible but in no event later than three years from September 29, 2000.
HomeUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the EnvironmentRemarks & Releases...Remarks at U.S. Embassy Panama’s Direct Line Webinar

# 									Remarks at U.S. Embassy Panama’s Direct Line Webinar							

Remarks

Jose W. Fernandez, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

Washington, DC

November 9, 2022

*As prepared*

Good morning to our U.S. companies on the line and to our Panamanian audience tuning in.  Thank you, Chargé D’Affaires Tuttle, for working with us to organize this Direct Line webinar today.  And thank you to our Panamanian presenters today, Minister of Private Investment José Alejandro Rojas and Digicel Panama Counsel Annelise Valdes, for your insights into the local market and the business opportunity you will be presenting to us today.

The Direct Line program is one of the State Department’s most effective economic statecraft tools, connecting U.S. companies directly with our mission leadership overseas and host nation speakers to learn more about promising commercial opportunities abroad.  On this Direct Line call we have the chance to explore an opportunity to expand commercial engagement between our two countries, and to expose even more U.S. companies to investment possibilities in Panama.

As I am sure many of you are aware, Central America is one of the Biden-Harris Administration’s priority regions.  Panama is a critical nation that literally bridges the north and south, while also reaching out to the rest of the world.  It is an important example of democratic governance and rule of law in the region.  It is also a good example of how the private sector can be a positive force for prosperity.  I saw examples of this during my September trip to Panama where I learned about the exciting opportunity we will discuss today.

Panama is seeking a mobile network provider to take over Digicel Panama’s assets.  This presents an opportunity in a rapidly growing market with extensive linkages throughout Latin America.  This investment will help advance fifth- and future-generation (5g) wireless networks in Panama.  5g is transformative and will touch every aspect of our lives, including critical infrastructure such as transportation, electrical distribution, healthcare, and many more sectors.  That is why the Biden-Harris Administration views the security of 5g and future networks as a high priority.

This investment in Panama will enable critical and emerging applications, including telemedicine, public utilities, and autonomous vehicles; help bridge the digital divide, and allow citizens to take part in the future digital economy.

I know there are immense opportunities in Panama in the digital technology sector, and I look forward to learning more about our potential for commercial engagement during this presentation.  Thank you again all for joining us on this Direct Line call.

I will now pass the floor back to our moderator, Anil Sarda.

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDirect LinePanamaUnder Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment

Back to Top
#### Commissioners Court of Coffee County *v.*Ballard.

*Road Contest.*

(Decided June 1, 1912.

59 South. 191.)

*Appeal and Error; Organisation of Court; Dismissal.■*— Where the record fails to show that the purported judgment was rendered by a tribunal organized at a time provided by law, the appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

*311Contest of creation of private road across lands of B. R. Ballard. From judgment awarding damages, Commissioners’ Court of Coffee County appeals. Appeal dismissed.

This appeal is from a contest over the creation of a private road across the lands of B. R. Ballard, which contest was appealed from the commissioners’ to the circuit court, and this appeal is from the judgment of that court, awarding an amount of damages for the land taken by the road. The record shows: “State of Alabama, Coffee County, First Week, Fall Term, Circuit Court, at Elba, Alabama,” and that the sheriff turned into court the venire of the jurors regularly drawn for that week, and it follows with the names and occupations of same, those excused, those qualified to serve, and this is followed by the impaneling of the jury, etc. It nowhere shows the presence of the judge, the clerk, or the sheriff, and does not further show the date of the organization.

J. A. Carnley, for appellant.

Counsel discusses the merits of the controversy and cites authority in support of his contention, and then concludes by asserting that the record does not show the organization of the court, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Riley & Carmichael, for appellee.

Counsel insist that the cause should be dismissed because not taken in time. — Section 4866, Code 1907. Also because proper security for cost is not given. — Section 2843, Code 1907. Also, because the judgment does not purport to have been rendered at a term of the court organized at a time and under authority of *law.*— Grantham *v. The State,*in MSS.

*312WALKER, P. J.

The record in this case does not show that, at the term at which what purports to be the judgment sought to be reviewed was rendered, the court was convened or presided over by a judge authorized by law to hold it. The appeal must be dismissed because of the failure of the record to show that what it sets out as a judgment of the court was rendered by a tribunal organized pursuant to *law.*—Grantham *v. State,*3 Ala. App. 168, 57 South. 1025, and authorities there cited.

Appeal dismissed.
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.

§ 11.702 Communications concerning a practitioner's services: specific rules. ( a ) A practitioner may communicate information regarding the practitioner's services through any medium.
( b ) A practitioner shall not compensate, give, or promise anything of value to a person for recommending the practitioner's services, except that a practitioner may: ( 1 ) Pay the reasonable costs of advertisements or communications permitted by this section;
( 2 ) Pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified practitioner referral service;
( 3 ) Pay for a law practice in accordance with § 11.117;
( 4 ) Refer clients to another practitioner or a non-practitioner professional pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct that provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the practitioner, if: ( i ) The reciprocal referral agreement is not exclusive, and
( ii ) The client is informed of the existence and nature of the agreement; and
( 5 ) Give nominal gifts as an expression of appreciation that are neither intended nor reasonably expected to be a form of compensation for recommending a practitioner's services.
( c ) A practitioner shall not state or imply that he or she is certified as a specialist in a particular field of law, unless: ( 1 ) The practitioner has been certified as a specialist by an organization that has been approved by an appropriate authority of a State or that has been accredited by the American Bar Association, and
( 2 ) The name of the certifying organization is clearly identified in the communication.
( d ) Any communication made under this section must include the name and contact information of at least one practitioner or law firm responsible for its content.
[86 FR 28466, May 26, 2021]
Motion s denied, Appeal dismissed , and Memorandum Opinion filed April 25 ,

202 4

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 2 3

- 00 6 80

- CV

ALI CHOUDHRI , Appellant

V.

OSAMA ABDULLATIF , Appelle e

On Appeal from the 333 rd District Court

Harris County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 50232

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This appeal is from a judgment signed July 31, 2023

. The clerk’s record was filed October 17, 2023. The reporter’s record was filed October 30, 2023. No brief
has been filed . On January 30, 2024, the court issued an order extending the time to file the brief to March 26, 2024. In that ruling, the court stated that no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed.

On March 27 , 20 24
, we issued a notice stating that unless appellant filed a2

brief along with a motion requesting an extension of time on or before April 8 , 20 24
, the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of prosecution.
See Tex. R. App. P. 4.1(a), 42.3(b).
Appellant did not file anything following that notice aside from motions requesting a further extension of time that were not accompanied by a brief and did not provide any exceptional circumstances that would support such an extension. Accordingly, we de ny the motion s and dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution

. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Bourliot and Zimmerer

.
116 STAT. 122 PUBLIC LAW 107–159—APR. 4, 2002

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3985:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):

Mar. 19, considered and passed House.

Mar. 21, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 107–159

107th Congress

An Act

To amend the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the leasing of restricted Indian

lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and

other purposes requiring the grant of long-term leases’’, approved August 9,

1955, to provide for binding arbitration clauses in leases and contracts related

to reservation lands of the Gila River Indian Community.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the

first section of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to authorize the leasing

of restricted Indian lands for public, religious, educational, recreational, residential, business, and other purposes requiring the

grant of long-term leases’’, approved August 9, 1955, (69 Stat.

539; 25 U.S.C. 415) is amended by adding at the end the following

new subsection:

‘‘(f) Any lease entered into under the Act of August 9, 1955

(69 Stat. 539), as amended, or any contract entered into under

section 2103 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 81), as amended,

affecting land within the Gila River Indian Community Reservation

may contain a provision for the binding arbitration of disputes

arising out of such lease or contract. Such leases or contracts

entered into pursuant to such Acts shall be considered within

the meaning of ‘commerce’ as defined and subject to the provisions

of section 1 of title 9, United States Code. Any refusal to submit

to arbitration pursuant to a binding agreement for arbitration or

the exercise of any right conferred by title 9 to abide by the

outcome of arbitration pursuant to the provisions of chapter 1

of title 9, sections 1 through 14, United States Code, shall be

deemed to be a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws

or treaties of the United States within the meaning of section

1331 of title 28, United States Code.’’.

Approved April 4, 2002.

Apr. 4, 2002

[H.R. 3985]
v ATTACHMENT.

#### EDSON KEITH v. A. D. MOORE ET AL.

Re-delivery Bond. — Re-delivery Bond may be Given for Part of Property Attached..

. Application for supersedeas.

Everett, Dellenbaugh & Wood, for plaintiff,

Burke & Ingersoll, for defendant.

Held: Under sec. 5529, Rev. Stat., defendant has a right to furnish a re-delivery bond for the whole or for a part of the property attached.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 22 

To make appropriations for military construction and family housing projects 

for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. HAYES, Mr. FRANKS

of Arizona, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. 

BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. WILSON

of South Carolina, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Mrs. MILLER of 

Michigan, Mrs. MCMORRIS RODGERS, Mr. MCKEON, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. BOREN, Mr. SAXTON, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. 

TURNER, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, and Mr. JONES of North Carolina) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To make appropriations for military construction and family 

housing projects for the Department of Defense for fiscal 

year 2007, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 

4 FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS. 

5 There is hereby appropriated, out of any money in 

6 the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military conVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:28 Jan 09, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H22.IH H22

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 22 IH

1 struction, family housing, and base realignment and clo2 sure functions administered by the Department of De3 fense, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, an 

4 amount equal to the total amounts that were authorized 

5 to be appropriated for such purposes for such fiscal year 

6 under the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fis7 cal Year 2007 (division B of the John Warner National 

8 Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public 

9 Law 109–364)). Amounts appropriated under this section 

10 shall only be available to the extent amounts have not pre11 viously been appropriated for such purposes. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
**From:** Szabo, Aaron [ mailto:Aaron_L_Szabo@omb.eop.gov ]

**Sent:** Monday, June 22, 2015 5:55 PM **To:** Brachtl, Megan **Cc:** Ling, Michael **Subject:** Summary of Interagency Comments under EO 12866 and 13563 Data Requirements for SO2 FR Attached please find a summary of interagency comments under EO 12866 and 1363 on the EPA final rule entitled, Data Requirements Rule for the 2010 1

-Hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Aaron L. Szabo Policy Analyst Office of Management and Budget 202

- 395

- 3621 Aaron_L_Sza bo@omb.eop.gov
#### § 11.102 Term of note.

All loans will be for a period of one year and if not paid will be automatically extended from year to year for periods of one year in the amount of the principal plus interest accrued to the end of the immediately preceding expired loan year, which total amount shall automatically become a new principal each year provided a loan may be paid off at any time by the payment of principal and accrued interest, but in no event will interest accruing after September 30, 1931, be deducted in final settlement of a certificate except as provided in § 11.93(b).
§ 21.44 Extension of the basic period of eligibility for a veteran with a serious employment handicap. ( a ) *Conditions for extension.* A Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC) may extend the basic period of eligibility of a veteran with a serious employment handicap when the veteran's current employment handicap and need for rehabilitation services and assistance necessitate an extension under the following conditions: ( 1 ) *Not rehabilitated to the point of employability.* The veteran has not been rehabilitated to the point of employability; or (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3103(c))
( 2 ) *Rehabilitated to the point of employability.* The veteran was previously declared rehabilitated to the point of employability, but currently meets one of the following three conditions: ( i ) One or more of the veteran's service-connected disabilities has worsened, preventing the veteran from working in the occupation for which he or she trained, or in a related occupation;
( ii ) The veteran's current employment handicap and capabilities clearly show that the occupation for which the veteran previously trained is currently unsuitable; or
( iii ) The occupational requirements in the occupation for which the veteran trained have changed to such an extent that additional services are necessary to enable the veteran to work in that occupation, or in a related field. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3103(c))
( b ) *Length of eligibility extension.* For a veteran with a serious employment handicap, a CP or VRC may extend the basic period of eligibility for such additional period as the CP or VRC determines is needed for the veteran to accomplish the purposes of his or her individualized rehabilitation program.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3103(c))
[75 FR 3166, Jan. 20, 2010]