alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04

- 15

- 00151

- CV IN RE Dr. Richard Bruce DE BENEDETTO , M.D. Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Jason Pulliam, Justice Delivered and Filed: June 10, 2015 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED On May 29, 2015 , relator Dr. Richard Bruce DeBenedetto filed a “corrected” petition for writ of mandamus . Because we conclude relator has still not established his entitlement to mandamus relief, we deny relator’s corrected petition

. DeBenedetto filed his original mandamus petition on March 18, 2015, complaining the trial court had failed to order a transfer of venue in the under lying suit affecting the parent

- child relationship. On March 25, 2015, this court issued its opinion denying the mandamus petition. 2 Although relator asserted the trial court’s failure to order transfer of venue as the basis for mandamus relief, the record provided did not establish the trial court’s failure to rule on a properly

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 111069C, styled In the Interest of E.D., E.D., I.D., and J.D., Children , pending in the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas , the Honorable Cathy Morris, Associate Judge, presiding. 2 See In re DeBenedetto , No. 04

- 15

- 00151

- CV, 2015 WL 1393375 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding).04

- 15

- 00151

- CV

- 2

- filed motion , which had awai ted disposition for an unreason able period of time. See Safety

- Kleen Corp. v. Garci a , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). In t he recently filed amended petition for writ of mandamus , relator again complains of the trial court’s failure to consider and rule upon his motion for change of venue. With the ame nded petition, relator has provided this court with a file

- stampe d copy of his motion for change of venue, reflecting it was filed in October 2014. Relator’s request for a hearing on his motion, however, was not filed until May 6, 2015. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P

. 87(1) ( movant has the burden to request a setting on a motion to transfer venue)

. In order to be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non

- discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act ; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina , 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministeri al, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety

- Kleen Corp. , 945 S.W.2d a t 269

. However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates that a properly filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. Based on the record provided , we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, relator’s corrected petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
No. 10-10889.

#### Kim *v.*Donahoe, Postmaster General, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
343P15

#### State v. Ron Fitzgerald Kenney

Defs *Pro Se*Motion for PDR (COAP15-621)

Denied 10/07/2015
**EXHIBIT 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-61190)pertaining to the Delta Apparel, Inc. 2001 Stock Option Plan and Delta Apparel, Inc. 2001 IncentiveStock Award Plan of our reports dated August 30, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Delta Apparel, Inc. and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting of Delta Apparel, Inc., included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the yearended June 30, 2007.           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP  Atlanta, Georgia
605 P.2d 973

#### STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles William OTT, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 13452.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 6, 1980.

David Lee Posey, Pros. Atty., Payette, for plaintiff-appellant.

Bert L. Osborn of Welch & Osborn, Payette, for defendant-respondent.

PER CURIAM:

The defendant respondent Ott moved to dismiss the appeal filed by the prosecuting attorney of Payette County from an order of the district court dated July 26, 1979, which apparently terminated the above entitled criminal action. Although the notice of appeal was filed on August 29, 1979, the Attorney General of the State of Idaho has not participated by joining in said notice of appeal pursuant to his statutory authority under I.C. § 67 — 1401(1). Therefore the Court concludes that the appeal is not authorized by the Attorney General and is therefore dismissed.

BISTLINE, J., dissents, noting also that the dismissal entered by the Court is not on the grounds raised by Ott’s motion.
Further, because we dismiss this appeal, appellant need not file the civil 

proper person appeal statement or transcript request form mailed to him 

on July 18,2014. 

It is so ORDERED. 

J. 

-rbou.sztre,J. 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge 

James Michael Tartisel 

Samantha R. Blackford 

Samantha R. Tartisel 

Carson City Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A eb 

417:71tait==i1EIS .
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 the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management 

          - [CA-330-1820-00] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Northwest California Resource Advisory Council, Arcata, CA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Public Law 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579), the U.S. Bureau of Land Management's Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will hold a field tour and meeting Thursday and Friday, July 13 and 14, 2000, in Eureka, California. Both the field tour and meeting are open to the public. Members of the public participating in the field tour must bring their own transportation, lunch and beverages. Those wishing to participate in the field tour must RSVP with the BLM Arcata Field Office, 1695 Heindon Rd., Arcata, CA. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The meeting begins at 10 a.m. Wednesday, July 13, at the parking area of the Eureka Inn, 518 G St., in Eureka, California. Members will join staff from the BLM's Arcata Field Office and depart immediately for a guided hike into the southern part of the Headwaters Forest Reserve. On Friday, July 14, the council will convene a business meeting in the Eureka Inn. Agenda items include discussion of the BLM's proposed development of a national strategy for management of off-highway vehicles on                           ( print page 39176)                        public lands. The council will accept public comments on this topic, and others, beginning at 11 a.m. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit could be established. The council will also discuss emerging issues for the BLM, review a proposed publication series, and hear reports from the managers of the BLM's Arcata, Redding and Ukiah field offices.                 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Contact Lynda Roush, BLM Arcata Field Manager, at (530) 233-4666. 

Joseph J. Fontana, 

Public Affairs Officer. 

[FR Doc. 00-15893 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
§ 105-50.105 Coordination of requests. ( a ) All inquiries of a general nature concerning services GSA can provide shall be addressed to the General Services Administration (BR), Washington, DC 20405. The Director of Management Services, Office of Administration, shall serve as the central coordinator for such inquiries and shall assign them to the appropriate organizational element of GSA for expeditious handling.
( b ) Requests for specific services may be addressed directly to Heads of Services and Staff Offices and to Regional Administrators. Section 105-50.202 describes the specific services GSA can provide.
( c ) If the proper GSA organizational element is not known to the State or local unit of government, the request shall be addressed as in paragraph (a) of this section to ensure appropriate handling.
596 P.2d 109

#### The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Norman L. ISBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13034.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

June 14, 1979.

*238Randy J. Stoker of Kvanvig, Stoker & Stanger, Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Eugene A. Ritti, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant-Appellant Norman L. Isbell appeals from an indeterminate sentence of four years to the custody of the State Board of Corrections after he pleaded guilty to the crime of first degree burglary.

Isbell’s contention is that his sentence was excessive and that the district court erred in not granting probation since alcohol was the cause of his present involvement with the law, as well as of his prior criminal record, consisting of four felonies, six misdemeanors, and five parole or probation violations.

The district court fully considered all factors relevant to the granting and withholding of probation. Both the imposition of sentence and the length of the sentence were well within the Court’s discretion, and we do not find the sentence excessive under the circumstances of this case. In accordance with prior decisions of this Court, including *State v. Ward,*98 Idaho 571, 569 P.2d 916 (1977); *State v. Allen,*98 Idaho 782, 572 P.2d 885 (1977); and *State v. Mansfield, 97*Idaho 138, 540 P.2d 800 (1975), and even recognizing the influence of alcohol on the defendant’s present and past crimes, as we did in *State v. Martin,*99 Idaho 781, 589 P.2d 116 (1979), the conviction, judgment and sentence are affirmed.
1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John M. Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 01-2999

___________ Willie Wilks, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Robert Mundt, Warden, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 22, 2002 Filed: January 30, 2002

___________ Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Federal inmate Willie Wilks appeals the District Court’s 1 dismissal with prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. After de novo review, see United States v. Lurie , 207 F.3d 1075, 1076 (8th Cir. 2000), we affirm. Wilks sought § 2241 relief because the Bureau of Prisons denied his request to remove the Sex Offender Public Safety Factor from his Custody Classification-2- Form. We agree with the District Court that the stigma Wilks faced as a result of his classification, without more, failed to implicate a protected liberty interest upon which he could base his procedural due process claim. SeeMoody v. Daggett , 429 U.S. 78, 88 n.9 (1976) (noting that prison classification and eligibility for rehabilitative programs in federal system are matters delegated by Congress to discretion of federal prison officials and thus implicate “no legitimate statutory or constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process”). Wilks, who is due to be released early based on good-time credits he has earned, conceded that his completion of a drug-treatment program would merely make him eligible for—not guarantee—an even earlier release. Cf. Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995) (concluding that because nothing in state code required parole board to deny parole in face of misconduct record, and because misconduct record did not inevitably affect duration of inmate’s confinement but was just one of many considerations in parole decision, the mere possibility that disciplinary committee's misconduct finding would influence later parole decision was “too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause”). Further, even if the classification implicated a protected liberty interest, we would hold that—because the classification was based in Wilks’s case on actual convictions—the review he received when he challenged it administratively met minimum procedural due process requirements. Cf. Neal v. Shimoda , 131 F.3d 818, 831 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding that state prisoner received due process when prison notified him that his classification as a sex offender was based on his prior sex-offense conviction). We decline to consider Wilks’s collateral challenge to the prior sex-offense convictions upon which his classification was based, and we deny his pending motion. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.-3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### § 109-40.5100 Scope of subpart.

This subpart sets forth the policy for issuance of certifications regarding Price-Anderson coverage of particular shipments of nuclear materials.
[Civ. No. 10477.

First Appellate District, Division One.

June 8, 1938.]

#### EUGENIO GERINI et al., Appellants, v. PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Respondents.

Fletcher A. Cutler for Appellants.

Carl A. Onkka for Respondents.

GRAY, J., *pro*tem.

This is a companion appeal to the one taken in *Gerini*v. *Pacific Employers Insurance Co. et al.,*No. 10478, wherein an opinion has this day been filed *(ante,*p. 52 [80 Pac. (2d) 499]), affirming the judgment. All questions raised in the present appeal are considered and disposed of in that opinion. Therefore, upon the grounds and for the reasons stated therein, the judgment herein in favor of the defendant Andriano Ramazzotti is likewise affirmed.

Knight, Acting P. J., and Cashin, J., concurred.

A petition by appellants to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 4,1938.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CARLY BITTLINGMEYER, Indiv. and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRULIEVE, INC.,

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-CV-61804-WPD

DEFENDANT, TRULIEVE, INC.’S, 

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Trulieve, Inc. 

(“Trulieve”) moves this Court for the entry of an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s, Carly Bittlingmeyer, 

individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”), Complaint) (ECF No. 1, the 

“Complaint”) without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

The bases for this Motion are more fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of 

Law, which is incorporated herein by reference.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that its Motion be granted, that Plaintiff’s 

Complaint be dismissed without prejudice, and that the Court award any other and any other further 

relief as the Court deems appropriate. 

Oral argument is requested. 

Case 0:22-cv-61804-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 1 of 2
2

Dated: March 3, 2023

GRIESING MAZZEO LAW, LLC

 By: /s/ Julie Negovan_____________

Julie Negovan 

R. Keith Petersen

Atty. I.D. Nos. 121450; 1038461

6750 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309

(215) 618-3720

jnegovan@griesinglaw.com

kpetersen@griesinglaw.com

Attorney for Defendant Trulieve, Inc.

Case 0:22-cv-61804-WPD Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2023 Page 2 of 2
#### § 102-79.10 What basic assignment and utilization of space policy governs an Executive agency?

Executive agencies must provide a quality workplace environment that supports program operations, preserves the value of real property assets, meets the needs of the occupant agencies, and provides child care and physical fitness facilities in the workplace when adequately justified. An Executive agency must promote maximum utilization of Federal workspace, consistent with mission requirements, to maximize its value to the Government.
**Exhibit32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of Duke Realty Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form10-K for the year ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dennis D. Oklak,Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to § Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 
|   |   | /s/  Dennis  D. Oklak |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Dennis D. Oklak                 |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer         |
|   |   |  of the General  Partner   |
|   |   | Date:  March 7, 2005       |

 

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Duke Realty Limited Partnership, and willbe retained by Duke Realty Limited Partnership and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
February 15, 1979

404 A.2d 1351

#### Commonwealth v. Kastner, Appellant.

Argued October 26, 1978.

Dennis J. Clark and with him W. Robert Ament, for appellant; Robert F. Hawk, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before CERCONE, WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

CERCONE, P. J., concurred in the result.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 8, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00422

- CV

Billie 0. Stone d/b/a Stobil Enterprise , Appellant

v.

Randolph

- Brooks Federal Credit Union , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 433RD DISTRICT COURT OF CO MAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, KELLY, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order di s missing the lawsuit signed by the tr i a l court on July 20, 2021

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the order

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s o rder di s missing the

lawsuit

. A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court

below.
VOLUNTEERING: A PATHWAY TO EMPLOYMENT

The new report from the Corporation for National and Community 

Service provides the most compelling empirical evidence to date 

linking volunteering and employment in the United States. 

Volunteers have higher odds of nding employment 

in today’s job market.

2

HIG

7%

HER ODDS

TENMYOPL EMGINDIN F

NON-VOLUNTEER VOLUNTEER

Volunteers have a 27% 

higher odds of finding 

employment than 

non-volunteers.

51% IN

5

CRE

5%

ASE IN ODDS INCREASE IN ODDS

TENMYOPL EMGINDIN F

NO HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA LIVE IN RURAL AREAS

The relationship between 

volunteering and employment 

was strongest for individuals 

without a high school diploma 

and those who live in rural areas. 

20%

15%

10%

0%

Non-Volunteers

TENMYOPL EM OFYTILIBAOBPR

2003 2006 2009 2012

Average Increase for Volunteers

The relationship is stable 

across time and economic 

conditions.

How could volunteering help individuals nd employment?

Volunteering increases 

an individual's networks 

and connections.

Volunteering increases an 

individual’s experience or 

useful education, skills, 

and training.

Volunteering helps to 

create a positive impression 

in a competitive job market.

CNCS expands economic opportunity through all its programs.

CNCS helps disconnected 

youth, new Americans, 

veterans, military families, 

seniors, and people with 

disabilities acquire the 

skills, education, and 

training they need for 

employment.

Through AmeriCorps, Senior 

Corps, the Social Innovation 

Fund, and Volunteer Generation

Fund, CNCS engages 

Americans in service at 

70,000+ locations in the U.S. 

4.7 MILLION 

COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS

National Service recruits 

4.7+ million community 

volunteers through 

AmeriCorps and Days of 

Service to strengthen 

nonprofits and communities.

LEARN MORE

Visit NationalService.gov. 

SOURCES: CNCS, VOLUNTEERING AS A PATHWAY TO EMPLOYMENT: DOES VOLUNTEERING INCREASE ODDS OF FINDING A JOB FOR THE OUT OF WORK?, 2013 

 CNCS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATION 2014, 2013
135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, Florida 33146

TEL 305.230.4884 FAX 305.230.4844

www.fairlawattorney.com

EXHIBIT

“F”

EXHIBIT “F”

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 1 of 2
MAIL, EMAIL, OR TEXT YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO: 

FairLaw Firm 

135 San Lorenzo Avenue, Suite 770, Coral Gables, FL 33156 / brian@fairlawattorney.com

TEL 305.230.4884 TEXT 786.386.0885 FAX 305.230.4844

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 1:22-CV-23074-BLOOM/OTAZO-REYES

OCTAVIO COLLADO,

Plaintiff,

COLLECTIVE ACTION

vs.

450 NORTH RIVER DRIVE, LLC,

D/B/A KIKI ON THE RIVER, 

RJ RIVER, LLC AND 

ROMAN JONES,

Defendants.

______________________________/

CONSENT TO JOIN PURSUANT TO 29 U.S.C. §216(b)

1. My name is __________________________________________.

2. I consent, agree, and opt to become a Plaintiff in this lawsuit brought under the FLSA, 29 

U.S.C. §201, et seq., against my current/former employers, 450 North River Drive, LLC, RJ River, LLC, 

and Roman Jones, and any of their officers, agents, parent corporations, successor corporations, 

subsidiaries, joint employers, and representatives (collectively “Defendants”).

3. I wish to assert a claim for unpaid/underpaid tips (overtips) from Defendants so I can 

recover all tips/overtips, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs available to me.

4. I agree to be bound by any adjudication of this action by the Court, whether it is favorable 

or unfavorable. I further agree to be bound by any collective action settlement herein that is both 

recommended by FairLaw Firm and approved by the Class Representative so that the Court can approve 

it as fair, adequate, and reasonable.

5. I designate the FairLaw Firm to represent me in this action.

6. This form may be utilized and/or re-filed in an individual action for me, as necessary.

Dated ________________, 202__. Signed: _____________________________

 Printed Name: ______________________________

Your Address, Email, and Telephone Are Needed, But Will Not Filed With The Court

Address:__________________________ Tel No.: __________________________

 __________________________ Email: __________________________

Case 1:22-cv-23074-BB Document 65-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2023 Page 2 of 2