alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered November 29, 2017

Nov

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01042-CR

No. 05-17-01043-CR

No. 05-17-01044-CR

JAIME ANTONIO ALVARENGA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 292nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F11-26734-V, F11-26736-V & F11-26739-V

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s November 20, 2017 documents entitled “Objection 

Filed” which we will construe as motions to supplement the reporter’s record under rule 34.6(d) 

of the rules of appellate procedure. We GRANT the motions and ORDER official deputy court 

reporter Robin Washington to file, within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order, a 

supplemental reporter’s record of the March 23, 2015 arraignment hearing.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Brandon Birmingham, Presiding Judge, 292nd Judicial District Court; to Peri Wood, 

official court reporter; to Robin Washington, official deputy court reporter, 292nd Judicial 

District Court; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

VIRGINIA NOCE, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 13-1133 (ABJ)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

ORDER

On September 18, 2014, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay issued a Report and 

Recommendation [Dkt. # 16] with respect to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 9] 

and defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 8]. The report advised the parties “that 

under the provisions of Local Rule 72.3(b) of the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia, any party who objects to the Report and Recommendation must file a written 

objection thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 days of the party’s receipt of this Report 

and Recommendation.” September 18, 2014 Report and Recommendation at 19. To date, no 

objections have been filed. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 16] is 

ADOPTED in its entirety; 

it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 9] is 

granted in part and denied in part; and 

it is FURTHER ORDERED that defendant’s motion for summary judgment [Dkt. # 8] is 

granted in part and denied in part.
2

Specifically, it is ORDERED that:

• The Hearing Officer’s Determination that even if defendant failed to comply with 

the Previous Hearing Officer’s Decision, this failure did not constitute a denial of 

a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) is reversed; 

• The May 31, 2012, Individual Educational Program (“IEP”) meeting failed to 

remedy defendant’s procedural violation of the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (“IDEA”) and resulted in an ongoing denial of a FAPE; 

• This denial of a FAPE justifies reimbursement for the cost of tuition at Lab 

School for a period between May 31, 2012, and April 11, 2013;1

• The Hearing Officer’s Determination that defendant committed a procedural 

violation of the IDEA by failing to conduct an annual review of M.K-N.’s IEP is 

upheld; 

• The Hearing Officer’s Determination that this procedural violation did not 

constitute a denial of a FAPE is reversed; 

• The Hearing Officer’s Determination that defendant did not deny M.K-N. a FAPE 

by failing to issue prior written notice following the May 31, 2012, IEP meeting is 

upheld; and 

• The Hearing Officer’s Determination denying alteration of M.K-N.’s IEP to place 

M.K-N. at Lab School and require defendant to prospectively fund M.K-N.’s 

private education is upheld. 

 

AMY BERMAN JACKSON

United States District Judge

DATE: October 6, 2014

 

1 Neither party has challenged the selection of May 31, 2012 as the operative date for 

determining the reimbursement period for M.K-N.’s Lab School tuition costs.
#### § 136.229 Compensation allowable.

The amount of compensation allowable is the total net revenue actually lost.

Profits and Earning Capacity
###### Editorial Note on Part 117

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

#### § 117.441 D'Inde Bayou.

The draw of the Union Pacific railroad bridge, mile 4.3, shall open on signal if at least 72 hours notice is given to the Defense Plant Corporation, Cities Service Refining Corporation Agent.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10871 Summary Calendar

LEVI WOODERTS, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION SEAGOVILLE, Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CV-188

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Levi Wooderts, Jr., federal prisoner # 29639-077, appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. Wooderts argues that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) improperly denied him credit on his federal sentence beginning from the time of his arrest by state law enforcement officials and that, following the dismissal of state charges and lifting of a state parole violator warrant, he was in the sole custody of the federal Government. Wooderts has failed to show that the state custody was interrupted, and he was not entitled to creditNo. 05-10871 -2- on his federal sentence for the time that he was in federal custody pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. See United States v. Brown , 753 F.2d 455, 456 (5th Cir. 1985). With the benefit of liberal construction, Wooderts also argues that the BOP failed to consider properly his request for a nunc pro tunc designation that would have effectuated the concurrent running of his federal and state sentences. Given the district court’s clarification that Wooderts’s sentence was to be served consecutively to any state sentence, the BOP did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant Wooderts’s request. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3584(a)-(b), 3621(b). The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1396]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Notice of Agreement(s) Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following 
agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can 
review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of 
the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, Room 962. Interested 
parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal 
Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date 
this notice appears in the Federal Register.
    Agreement No.: 203-011686.
    Title: Cooperative Service Contract Agreement.
    Parties: Australian-New Zealand Direct Line Lykes Lines Limited, 
LLC.
    Synopsis: The proposed agreement authorizes the parties to 
negotiate, enter into, and participate in joint service contracts with 
shippers in the trades between the United States and ports and points 
worldwide. The parties request expedited review.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Bryant L. VanBrakle,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-1396 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLIING CODE 6730-01-P
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-15-0000757 28-MAR-2016 08:37 AM
# image3.png

# image4.png

# image1.emf

# image2.emf

# image5.png
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7456

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RONALD EMANUEL HANBERRY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Sr., District Judge. (CR-94-185, CA-97-1165-1)

Submitted: December 17, 1998 Decided: January 11, 1999

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronald Emanuel Hanberry, Appellant Pro Se. David Bernard Smith,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Ronald Hanberry appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). Appellant’s case was referred to a magistrate judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Appellant that the

failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the

recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to timely

object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v.

Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 467 U.S.

1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant

has waived appellate review by failing to file timely objections

after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny Appellant’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from this Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          44,674
<SECURITIES>                                     2,595
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,978
<ALLOWANCES>                                       211
<INVENTORY>                                        239
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,131
<PP&E>                                          12,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,398
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  94,572
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,537
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       143,035
<OTHER-SE>                                    (57,022)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    94,572
<SALES>                                         11,354
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,354
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (1,362)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (15,601)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       135
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,736)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,736)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)


</TABLE>
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed April 11, 2018.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

Nos. 3D16-2855 & 3D17-605

Lower Tribunal No. 15-7111

________________

Reynaldo Acosta and Iliana B. Acosta,

Appellants,

vs.

Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company,

Appellee.

Appeals from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Samantha RuizCohen, Judge.

The Monfiston Firm P.A., and Daniel Monfiston, for appellants.

Link & Rockenbach, P.A., and Kara Berard Rockenbach, (West Palm

Beach); Gaebe Mullen Antonelli DiMatteo, and Devang Desai, and Elaine D.

Walter, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and LINDSEY, JJ.

LINDSEY, J.
We find no error with regard to the issues raised on appeal relating to the

final judgment entered in favor of Tower Hill Signature Insurance Company and,

therefore, affirm. Because the order granting Tower Hill Signature Insurance

Company’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs from Reynaldo Acosta and

Iliana B. Acosta did not establish an amount, it was a non-final, non-appealable

order that is not ripe for our review. As such, we are without jurisdiction to

address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees. See Diaz v. Citizens

Prop. Ins. Corp., 227 So. 3d 735, 736-37 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“[W]e are without

jurisdiction to address the portion of the appeal relating to attorney’s fees . . . .

because no amount has been fixed by the trial court and the part of the final

judgment that finds entitlement thereto is not ripe for our review.” (first citing

Kling Corp. v. Hola Networks Corp., 127 So. 3d 833, 833 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013));

then citing Mills v. Martinez, 909 So. 2d 340, 342 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); and then

citing Chaiken v. Suchman, 694 So. 2d 115, 117 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). “Nor is

such an order one of the enumerated appealable non-final orders set forth in

Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.” Id. at 737 (quoting Kling Corp., 127

So. 3d at 833); see Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3). Accordingly, the appeal with

respect to attorney’s fees is dismissed without prejudice.

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

2
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Human Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                         July 5-6, 2000.                    

*Time:*                         July 5, 2000, 10:00 pm to Recess.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 100 Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Time:*                         July 6, 2000, 8:30 am to Adjournment.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         The Hyatt Regency Hotel, 100 Bethesda Metro Center, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Rudy O. Pozzatti, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301 402-0838.                              ( print page 35102)    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93. 172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: May 25, 2000.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 00-13714  Filed 5-31-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Yellow Chief Coal Company’s Trustee v. Preston, et al.

(Decided November 11, 1915.)

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.

H. R. DYSARD for appellant.

J. K. WEILLS for appellees.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Nunn

Reversing.

Decided upon tbe authority of Yellow Chief Coal Company’s Trustee v. Johnson, this day decided.,

*670Except the amount of money involved, the issues and the principles of law applicable thereto, as well as the judgment appealed from, are identical with those in the case of Yellow Chief Coal Company’s Trustee v. Johnson, this day decided.

On the authority of that case, the judgment is reversed, with direction for proceedings in the lower court consistent with the opinion rendered in that case.
##### 



Certifications Furnished
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of ADC Telecommunications, Inc. for the year ended
October 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the above-mentioned report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of ADC
Telecommunications, Inc.
 /s/ Robert E. Switz

Robert E. SwitzMarch 12, 2007/s/ Gokul V. Hemmady

Gokul V. HemmadyMarch 12, 2007
**[Program Name] Participant Post Program Survey**

Today’s date:  / /

M  M	D  D	Y	Y	Y	Y

Participant I.D. __ __ /__ __/ __ __ (first two letters of your first name, first two letters of your last name, last two numbers of your birth year) 

1.	In general, would you say that your health is:

Excellent	Very good	Good	Fair	Poor

***The next few questions ask about falls. By a fall, we mean when a person unintentionally comes to rest on the ground or another lower level.***

2.  Since this program began, how many times have you fallen? O none	O times

***If you fell since the program began:***

a.  how many of these falls caused an injury? *(By an injury we mean the fall caused you to limit your regular activities for at least a day or to go see a doctor.)*

	number of falls causing an injury

b. where did the fall(s) occur (*Please check all that apply)**?***

 Indoors	 Outdoors	 Both indoors and outdoors 

	c. what happened after you fell and had an injury? *(Please check all that apply)*****

Went to the Emergency Room		 Was admitted to the hospital  

Visited my Primary Care Physician 	Other: _________       None: ________

3. How fearful are you of falling? 

Not at all	A little	Somewhat	A lot

4. Please mark the circle that tells us how sure you are that you can do the following activities. 

**How sure are you that:**

**Please turn this paper over and fill out the other side.**

**Participant Post Program Survey**(continued)

5. During the last 4 weeks, to what extent has your concern about falling interfered with your normal social activities with family, friends, neighbors or groups?

Extremely	Quite a bit	Moderately	Slightly	Not at all

6. Please tell us your thoughts about this program. **Check one circle for each question**.

7. Since this program began, what have you done to reduce your chance of a fall?

**Check all that apply.**

o Talked to a family member or friend about how I can reduce my risk of falling

o Talked to a health care provider about how I can reduce my risk of falling

o Had my vision checked

o Had my medications reviewed by a health care provider or pharmacist

o Participated in another fall prevention program in my community

8. I have made some modifications at home, such as securing loose rugs, to reduce my risk of falling.  __ True  __ Falls

9. What best describes your activity level? 

O Vigorously active for at least 30 min, 3 times per week

O Moderately active at least 3 times per week

           O Seldom active, preferring sedentary activities
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50488-50489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20623]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Accreditation and Approval of Saybolt, LP., as a Commercial 
Gauger and Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP., as an 
approved commercial gauger and accredited laboratory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 
CFR 151.13, Saybolt, LP, Road 127 KM 13.4 Bo. Magas Arriba, P.R., has 
been approved to gauge and test petroleum and petroleum products for 
customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 
and 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct 
laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive 
written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or 
gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the 
specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved 
to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by 
calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a19180a54161b18120b3a1e1209541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533031237d3f32313b2213373b207d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web site listed below for a 
complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. 
http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The accreditation and approval of Saybolt, LP, Inc., Guayanilla, 
P.R., as commercial gauger and accredited laboratory became effective 
on March 11, 2010. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled 
for March 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Cousins, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-
1060.


[[Page 50489]]


    Dated: August 5, 2011.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2011-20623 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>