alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 18 - 00411 - CV IN RE LONNIE KADE WE LSH , RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### January 3 , 201 9 MEMORANDUM OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. We denied the petition for writ of mandamus of relator Lonnie Kade Welsh due to his failure to comply with appellate rule 52.3 and C hapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Subsequent to our opinion, Welsh filed an affidavit of indigence and a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement . W e construe the filings as a motion for reheari ng. Because Welsh has not cured the petition’s deficiencies and has not complied with Chapter 14 by filing an affidavit describing his previous filings , we deny the motion . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.3; T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 14 .004 (West 2017). Brian Quinn Chief Justice
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Ernest L. Heitman, Deceased. Maude Heitman, Appellant; Ricka Thiel et al., Respondents.

(Argued September 29, 1936;

decided October 13, 1936.)

*534
      *Thomas J. McKenna*for appellant.

*J. Carl Fogle*for Rieka Thiel et al., respondents.

*Ellsworth W. Storrs*and *W. W. Storrs*for Anna M. Short, respondent.

Order affirmed with costs. No opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Htjbbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ.
§ 23.2310 Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians. Airplanes intended for operations on water, must— ( a ) Provide buoyancy of 80 percent in excess of the buoyancy required to support the maximum weight of the airplane in fresh water; and
( b ) Have sufficient margin so the airplane will stay afloat at rest in calm water without capsizing in case of a likely float or hull flooding.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PULAK K. BARUA, A/K/A PULAK 

KUMAR BARUA, ET AL.,

 Appellants, 

v.

MABANK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, ET AL., 

 

 Appellees.

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

 

§

No. 08-20-00216-CV

Appeal from the

422nd District Court

of Kaufman County, Texas

(TC# 102225-422)

O R D E R

The Court received and filed the entry of appearance of Okechukwu Okorogi as requested 

in its order issued December 8, 2020. The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Appellant's brief 

is now due February 6, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7

th day of January, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 99(b)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Delphi
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Alan S. Dawes, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|   |                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements
    of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
    1934; and                               
|  
|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly
    presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
    results of operations of the Company.

|                 |  |                                                                                                                                                           
|---------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|October 16, 2002 |  | /s/ ALAN S. DAWES
    -----------------------------------------------------
    Alan S. Dawes
    Executive Vice President and
    Chief Financial Officer
#### MONTGOMERY v. HERRING.

No. 28217.

March 26, 1940.

*100 P. 2d 892.*

*10Orval Grim, of Cheyenne, for plaintiff in error.

F. R. Blosser, of Cheyenne, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

This action, one for a money judgment on a promissory note, was instituted in a justice of peace court by the defendant in error, hereafter referred to as plaintiff, against the plaintiff in error, hereafter referred to as defendant. The defendant prevailed in the justice court, whereupon plaintiff took an appeal to the district court. The defendant filed in the district court a written demand for a trial by jury, which was overruled and denied. Trial was thereupon had to the court over the objections and exceptions of defendant and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on March 26, 1937. The defendant filed a motion for new trial which was overruled on April 24, 1937. This appeal was lodged in this court on October 21, 1937.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in overruling his motion for new trial and the denial of his demand for a trial by jury. The action being one for the recovery of money where an issue was joined as to the amount due, the defendant was entitled as a matter of right to a trial by jury. Section 350, O. S. 1931, 12 Okla. St. Ann. § 556; Sutton v. Beidleman, 175 Okla. 578, 54 P. 2d 167; Thomas v. Westheimer & Daube, 87 Okla. 130, 209 P. 327; Avery v. Hays, 61 Okla. 145, 160 P. 712.

While in Sutton v. Beidleman, supra, it was said:

> “Where issue is joined as to amount due, the denial of a trial by jury is not error occurring at or during the trial, therefore neither a motion for a new trial nor a bill of exceptions is necessary, and the same can be reviewed by this court on appeal by transcript”

—it is not intended to preclude a party from presenting such error in a motion for new trial. See Gant v. Crandall, 75 Okla. 173, 182 P. 680; Mires v. Hogan, 79 Okla. 233, 192 P. 811; Wells v. Shriver, 81 Okla. 108, 197 P. 460; Attaway v. Watkins, 171 Okla. 102, 41 P. 2d 914; Oklahoma City Land & Development Co. v. Patterson, 73 Okla. 234, 175 P. 934.

Under the foregoing authorities, we hold that the appeal from the order overruling the motion for new trial was proper and within time and preserved for review the error in denying the demand for jury trial. In view of the conclusion thus reached, we deem it unnecessary to discuss the matter at any great length.

The cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial in accordance with the views herein expressed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
061517 ORDER RE PIZARRO-CORREA MOTION VERSION JUNE 15, 2017 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 

----------------------------------------------------------x 

In re: PROMESA 

 Title III 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

as representative of No. 17 BK 3283-LTS 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, (Jointly Administered) 

et al., 

 Debtors.1

----------------------------------------------------------x 

ORDER

 The Court has received and reviewed the Urgent Motion for Relief from Stay (the 

“Motion”) filed by Luz Pizarro-Correa (the “Movant”). (Docket Entry No. 328.) Opposition 

papers to the Motion must be filed by June 28, 2017. Movant’s reply papers must be filed by 

July 5, 2017. The Court will thereafter take the Motion on submission, unless a party thereto 

requests a hearing. 

 SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 15, 2017 

 /s/ Laura Taylor Swain 

 LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

 United States District Judge 

 

1

 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number listed as a bankruptcy case number due to software limitations and the last four (4) digits 

of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); 

and (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3284) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474). 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:347 Filed:06/15/17 Entered:06/15/17 13:33:02 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 417 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 417

   To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to amend the 
         mission statement of the Food and Drug Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 7, 2019

  Mr. Manchin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to amend the 
         mission statement of the Food and Drug Administration.

    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 ``Changing the Culture of the FDA 
Act''.

SEC. 2. MISSION STATEMENT OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

    The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the 
Commissioner of Food and Drugs, shall amend the mission statement of 
the Food and Drug Administration to include the following statement: 
``The FDA is also responsible for protecting the public health by 
strongly considering the danger of addiction and overdose death 
associated with prescription opioid medications when approving these 
medications and when regulating the manufacturing, marketing, and 
distribution of opioid medications.''.
                                 <all>
```
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3956 

To incentivize banning of chokeholds and carotid holds, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 11, 2020 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. SMITH, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To incentivize banning of chokeholds and carotid holds, 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘End Police Use of 

5 Chokeholds Act of 2020’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCENTIVIZING BANNING OF CHOKEHOLDS AND CA7 ROTID HOLDS. 

8 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

9 (1) BYRNE GRANT PROGRAM.—The term 

10 ‘‘Byrne grant program’’ means any grant program 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3956 IS

1 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 

2 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 

3 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.), without regard to whether 

4 the funds are characterized as being made available 

5 under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local 

6 Law Enforcement Assistance Programs, the Local 

7 Government Law Enforcement Block Grants Pro8 gram, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assist9 ance Grant Program, or otherwise. 

10 (2) CHOKEHOLD OR CAROTID HOLD.—The term 

11 ‘‘chokehold or carotid hold’’ means the application of 

12 any pressure to the throat or windpipe, the use of 

13 maneuvers that restrict blood or oxygen flow to the 

14 brain, or carotid artery restraints that prevent or 

15 hinder breathing or reduce intake of air of an indi16 vidual. 

17 (3) COPS GRANT PROGRAM.—The term ‘‘COPS 

18 grant program’’ means the grant program author19 ized under section 1701 of title I of the Omnibus 

20 Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 

21 U.S.C. 10381). 

22 (b) LIMITATION ON ELIGIBILITY FOR FUNDS.—Be23 ginning in the first fiscal year beginning after the date 

24 of enactment of this Act, a State or local jurisdiction may 

25 not receive funds under the Byrne grant program or the 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3956 IS

1 COPS grant program for a fiscal year if, on the day before 

2 the first day of the fiscal year, the State or other jurisdic3 tion does not have in effect a law that prohibits law en4 forcement officers in the State or other jurisdiction from 

5 using a chokehold or carotid hold. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
###### Editorial Note on Part 302

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 302 appear at 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 302.402 Definitions.

*Assistant General Counsel,* when used in this subpart, refers to the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.

*Complainant* refers to the person filing a complaint.

*Parties,* when used in this subpart, include the Office of the Assistant General Counsel, the respondent, the complainant, and any other person permitted to intervene under § 302.20.

*Respondent* refers to the person against whom a complaint is filed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7405
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 07-6197
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus RUSSELL LEE EBERSOLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00112-LMB) Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.- 2 - Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Russell Lee Ebersole, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Higgins McQuillan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 3 - PER CURIAM: Following his convictions on twenty-five counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1343 (West Supp. 2007), and two counts of presenting false claims to the government, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000), and his unsuccessful appeal of his convictions, Russell Lee Ebersole filed post-judgment motions which are the subject of these consolidated appeals. In Appeal No. 07-6197, Ebersole challenges the district court’s orders denying his motion for a new trial and related motions, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Ebersole , No. 1:03- cr-00112-LMB (E.D. Va. July 25, 2006 & Jan. 26, 2007). In Appeal No. 06-7405, Ebersole appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for immediate release. By failing to raise this claim in his informal brief, Ebersole has waived this issue. See4th Cir. R. 34(b). Ebersole’s motion to stay the subject appeals pending his recovery from surgery is denied. We also deny as moot his motion for a stay or extension of time to file his informal brief in Appeal No. 07-6197. 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. AFFIRMED
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**671 CAF 14-00526** 
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND WHALEN, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF LANCE M. LAPOINT, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WENDY PELLICIOTTI, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

KELLY M. CORBETT, FAYETTEVILLE, FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

KAREN J. DOCTER, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FAYETTEVILLE.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Onondaga County (Julie A. Cecile, J.), entered February 26, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, insofar as appealed from, directed that respondent continue to be the parent of primary residence.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, petitioner father sought “joint custody or full custody [i]f needed[,]” of the parties’ child and specific dates and times for visitation. The father appeals from an order insofar as it directed that respondent mother continue to be the “parent of primary residence.”

We agree with the father that Family Court erred in designating the mother the “parent of primary residence,” thereby implicitly condoning the mother’s relocation to Florida with the child. Inasmuch as “the court made no explicit determination that the relocation was in the best interests of the child, and . . . failed to make findings regarding relevant factors that must be considered in making such a determination” ( Matter of McLaughlin v Michaud , 256 AD2d 1130, 1131;

see Matter of Tropea v Tropea , 87 NY2d 727, 740-741), we reverse the order insofar as appealed from and remit the matter to Family Court for a determination, including specific findings, whether relocation to Florida with the mother is in the best interests of the child.

Entered: July 2, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
###### Editorial Note on Part 221

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 221 appear at 84 FR 15929, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 221.70 Who may amend tariffs.

A tariff shall be amended only by the carrier or agent who issued the tariff (except as otherwise authorized in subparts P and Q).
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4301 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4301

   To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces who are 
    outside of the State under orders to renew a permit to carry a 
      concealed firearm through the mail, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2020

  Mr. Hawley introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To encourage States to permit members of the Armed Forces who are 
    outside of the State under orders to renew a permit to carry a 
      concealed firearm through the mail, and for other purposes.

    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 ``U.S. Military Right to Carry Act''.

SEC. 2. CONCEALED CARRY RENEWALS BY MAIL FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
              FORCES.

    (a) In General.--A State that receives funds under subpart 1 of 
part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.) shall have in place--
            (1) a law or policy that permits a member of the Armed 
        Forces who is a resident of the State and who is outside of the 
        State under orders to renew a permit to carry a concealed 
        firearm through the mail; and
            (2) a law or policy that treats a member of the Armed 
        Forces on active duty in the State as a resident of the State 
        for purposes of issuing a permit to carry a concealed firearm 
        in the State.
    (b) Reduction in Funds.--Beginning in the first fiscal year that 
begins after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General 
shall, with respect to the amount that a State would otherwise receive 
under the grant program described in subsection (a)--
            (1) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the case of a State 
        that fails to comply with the requirement under subsection 
        (a)(1); and
            (2) reduce such amount by 5 percent in the case of a State 
        that fails to comply with the requirement under subsection 
        (a)(2).
    (c) Reallocation.--The Attorney General shall reallocate amounts 
not awarded to a State pursuant to subsection (b) to States that comply 
with the requirement under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-261-000]

Take notice that on May 1, 2000, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, with a proposed effective date of June 1, 2000.

#### Fifth Revised Sheet No. 317

Columbia Gulf states that the purpose of this filing is to set forth in its pro forma service agreement, applicable to Rate Schedule FTS-1, FTS-2, ITS-1, and ITS-2, contained in its Tariff an additional type of permissible discount that would allow Columbia Gulf to accept a production and/or reserve commitment in consideration for the granting of a discount.

Columbia Gulf states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all firm and interruptible customers and affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-11618 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M