alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 19
- 00461
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

IN RE FRAUDULENT HOSPITAL LIEN LITIGATION

On appeal from the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.



## ORDER Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes Order Per Curiam

This cause is currently before the Court because the Second Supplemental Clerk’s
Record

- Volume #2 as filed in this cause contains sensitive and prohibited material. See
T EX . R. C IV . P. 21c. On November 18 , 2020, appellee filed a “Motion for Release of Sealed
Portion s of Second Supplemental Clerk’s Record

- Volume #2.” Given the e xigent nature of this case and its appellate deadlines, see T EX . R. A PP

. P. 53.3 , 53.7(d) , the Court grants the motion and enters the following order regarding the appellate record. See T EX . R. A PP

. P. 34 .1

.The Court ORDERS the sealed record will be provided to counsel on a CD

- ROM.
The Court ORDERS counsel to treat the CD

- ROM as confidential and to safeguard it as an official and original court document. Counsel may not copy, save, or otherwise reproduce the CD

- ROM and shall promptly return th e CD

- ROM to the Court after use. Counsel is ordered to maintain the confidentiality of the information contained in this sealed record and is prohibited from disseminating the sensitive information contained within the sealed record to any person. Further, counsel is hereby ORDERED to fully comply with the requirements of the appellate rules regarding redaction and the use of aliases as appropriate in preparing and filing appellee’s response to appellant’s petition for review currently pending before the Texas Supreme Court

. See T EX . R. A PP

. P. 53.3, 53.7(d); T EX . R. C IV . P. 21c.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 20th day of November , 2020.

2
NO. 07-10-00489-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO
PANEL B OCTOBER 19, 2011

CARLOS LAMONT FISHER, JR., APPELLANT

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

FROM THE 223RD DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY; NO. 7369; HONORABLE LEE WATERS, JUDGE

Before QUINN, C.J., a nd CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

CONCURRING OPINION I agree with the Court that appellant Carlos Lamont Fis her, Jr. has not preserved his appellate complaint for our review. I also agree with the Court that the trial court did not err in its conclusion that the 180-day speedy trial period applied in this case rather than the 120-day period, but for a more na rrow reason than some of those the Court finds persuasive. In my view, we have no need in this case to decide whether the speedy trial provisions of Article IV of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers trump those of Article III when both articles have pl ayed a role in the transfer of a prisoner to Texas from another state. See, e.g. , State v. Almly, 216 Ariz. 41, 45, 162 P.3d 680, 6842 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007); Ullery v. State, 1999 OK CR 36, ¶ 9, 988 P.2d 332, 340-41 (describing approaches adopted by various states).
Although Gray County sent to Missouri an IADA form V (request for temporary custody), it seems clear from the other documentation in the record that from the time appellant signed the IADA form II (inmate’s not ice of place of imprisonment and request for disposition of indictments, informations or complaints), Miss ouri authorities treated the case as one proceeding under Article III. The only offer extended by Missouri authorities to deliver temporar y custody of appellant to Gr ay County, via the IADA form IV, refers to the request as one initiated by the inmate, not one effected pursuant to the Gray County request. And Texas accepted that offer by its execution of IADA form VII (prosecutor’s acceptance of temporary cu stody offered with an inmate’s request for disposition of detainer), signed by our stat e’s Agreement Coordinat or in Huntsville, Texas. Because the trial c ourt had before it evidence that appellant was returned to Texas by virtue of his request for speedy dis position of the Gray County charges, made under Article III, it did not err by concluding t he 180-day time period of Article III applied. For the reasons stated, I concur in the judgment of the Court.

James T. Campbell Justice Publish.
§ 22.107 General application requirements. In general, applications for authorizations, assignments of authorizations, or consent to transfer of control of licensees in the Public Mobile Services must: ( a ) Demonstrate the applicant's qualifications to hold an authorization in the Public Mobile services;
( b ) State how a grant would serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity;
( c ) Contain all information required by FCC rules or application forms;
( d ) Propose operation of a facility in compliance with all rules governing the Public Mobile service;
( e ) Be amended as necessary to remain substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects, in accordance with the provisions of § 1.65 of this chapter; and,
( f ) Be signed in accordance with § 1.743 of this chapter.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 13, 2022

No. 04-22-00410-CV

ALL OCCUPANTS,

Appellant

v.

V&S TOTAL TRADE, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CV01033

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an appeal in a forcible detainer case regarding 1619 Buena Vista St., Apt. 1B, San 

Antonio, TX, 78207. Appellant appealed the trial court’s judgment, which awarded possession of 

the real property to Appellee. Included in the clerk’s record on appeal is the trial court’s 

judgment and a writ of possession. The record does not show that Appellant filed a supersedeas 

bond to suspend the judgment. Nor does the record include a sheriff’s return, indicating the writ 

of possession has been executed and possession delivered to Appellee.

A case becomes moot if, at any stage of the proceedings, a controversy ceases to exist 

between the parties. See Marshall v. Hous. Auth. of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 

(Tex. 2006). “When a tenant is no longer in possession of the property and has not superseded 

the judgment of possession, [his] appeal is moot unless: (1) she timely and clearly expressed an 

intent to exercise the right of appeal, and (2) appellate relief is not futile.” Stewart v. Fiesta City 

Realtors, No. 04-17-00839-CV, 2018 WL 4760151, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 3, 

2018, no pet.) (mem. op.). “Appellate relief is not futile if the tenant holds and asserts ‘a 

potentially meritorious claim of right to current, actual possession” of the property. Id. (emphasis 

in original). Issues independent of possession may be reviewable, even if the issue of possession 

is moot. See Cavazos v. San Antonio Hous. Auth., No. 04-09-00659-CV, 2010 WL 2772450, at 

*2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.). Here, it is unclear whether 

Appellant currently holds possession of the real property at issue in this appeal. It also is not 

apparent from the record whether appellant holds and asserts a potentially meritorious claim of 

right to current, actual possession of the property.

FILE COPY
Accordingly, we ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing no later than October 28, 

2022, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 

43.2(f), 44.3. If Appellant does not respond by October 28, 2022, this appeal is subject to dismissal. 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 13th day of October, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### § 24.10 Scope.

This subpart contains some of the procedures and requirements for filing applications for licenses in the personal communications services. One also should consult subparts F and G of this part. Other Commission rule parts of importance that may be referred to with respect to licensing and operation of radio services governed under this part include 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 15, 17 and 20.

[59 FR 32854, June 24, 1994]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention


Translation Advisory Committee for Diabetes Prevention and 
Control Programs (TACDPCP): Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public 
Law 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the TACDPCP of the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period extending through June 
15, 2002.
    For further information, contact Frank Vinicor, M.D., M.P.H., 
Executive Secretary, TACDPCP, 4770 Buford Highway, N.E., m/s K-10, 
Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3724. Telephone 770/488-5000, or fax 770/488-
5966.
    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been 
delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to 
announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, 
for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency 
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Dated: June 23, 2000.
Carolyn J. Russell,
Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 00-16847 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
§ 24.238 Emission limitations for Broadband PCS equipment. The rules in this section govern the spectral characteristics of emissions in the Broadband Personal Communications Service. ( a ) *Out of band emissions.* The power of any emission outside of the authorized operating frequency ranges must be attenuated below the transmitting power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10 log(P) dB.
( b ) *Measurement procedure.* Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater. However, in the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve measurement accuracy provided the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement bandwidth (*i.e.* 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as specified). The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
( c ) *Alternative out of band emission limit.* Licensees in this service may establish an alternative out of band emission limit to be used at specified band edge(s) in specified geographical areas, in lieu of that set forth in this section, pursuant to a private contractual arrangement of all affected licensees and applicants. In this event, each party to such contract shall maintain a copy of the contract in their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees or transferees and, upon request, to the FCC.
( d ) *Interference caused by out of band emissions.* If any emission from a transmitter operating in this service results in interference to users of another radio service, the FCC may require a greater attenuation of that emission than specified in this section.
[67 FR 77192, Dec. 17, 2002]
§ 27.1207 Service areas and authorizations. ( a ) Initial authorizations for BRS granted after January 1, 2008, shall be blanket licenses for all BRS frequencies identified in § 27.5(i)(2). Except for incumbent BRS licenses, BRS service areas are the 1992 version of Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) defined by Rand McNally, or additional service areas similar to BTAs adopted by the Commission. The market area for each license will be listed on the license authorization. The following are additional BRS service areas in places where Rand McNally has not defined BTAs: American Samoa; Guam; Gulf of Mexico Zone A; Gulf of Mexico Zone B; Gulf of Mexico Zone C; Northern Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto Rico; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone A are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north and east, to the limit of the Outer Continental Shelf to the south, and to longitude 91°00′ to the west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone B are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north, to the limit of the Outer Continental Shelf to the south, to longitude 91°00′ to the east, and to longitude 94°00′ to the west. The boundaries of Gulf of Mexico Zone C are from an area twelve nautical miles from the shoreline at mean high tide on the north and west, to longitude 94°00′ to the east, and to a line 281 kilometers from the reference point at Linares, N.L., Mexico on the southwest. The Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, PR, service area consists of the following municipios: Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Coamo, Guanica, Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas, Las Marias, Maricao, Maunabo, Mayaguez, Moca, Patillas, Penuelas, Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincón, Sabana Grande, Salinas, San German, Santa Isabel, Villalba and Yauco. The San Juan service area consists of all other municipios in Puerto Rico.
( b ) For EBS initial licenses issued after October 25, 2019, except for licenses issued in the Tribal Priority Window, the GSA is the county for which the license is issued, subject to the exclusion of overlapping, co-channel incumbent GSAs. For purposes of this subpart, counties are defined using the United States Census Bureau's data reflecting county legal boundaries and names valid through January 1, 2017. Except for licenses issued in the Tribal Priority Window, there shall be three initial authorizations issued in each county: One authorization for channels A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, and C3; the second authorization for channels D1, D2, D3, JA1, JA2, JA3, JB1, JB2, JB3, JC1, JC2, JC3, JD1, JD2, JD3, A4, B4, C4, D4, and G4; the third authorization for channels G1, G2, G3, KG1, KG2, and KG3.
[84 FR 57366, Oct. 25, 2019]
§ 32.5230 Directory revenue. This account shall include revenue derived from alphabetical and classified sections of directories and shall also include fees paid by other entities for the right to publish the company's directories. Items to be included are: ( a ) All revenue derived from the classified section of the directories;
( b ) Revenue from the sale of new telephone directories whether they are the company's own directories or directories purchased from others. This shall also include revenue from the sale of specially bound telephone directories and special telephone directory covers;
( c ) Amounts charged for additional and boldface listings, marginal displays, inserts, and other advertisements in the alphabetical section of the company's telephone directories; and
( d ) Charges for unlisted and non-published telephone numbers.
[69 FR 44607, July 27, 2004]
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4349

To prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting flight tests of certain

missiles that would result in the release of debris outside a designated

Department of Defense test range.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 4, 1994

Ms. SHEPHERD (for herself, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Mr. KOPETSKI, Mr. HINCHEY,

Mr. OBERSTAR, Mr. COPPERSMITH, Ms. FURSE, and Ms. ENGLISH of

Arizona) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting

flight tests of certain missiles that would result in the

release of debris outside a designated Department of

Defense test range.

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 ‘‘Theater Missile

5 Defense Act of 1994’’.
2

HR 4349 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FLIGHT TESTS OF CERTAIN

2 MISSILES.

3 (a) LIMITATION.—The Secretary of Defense may not

4 conduct a flight test program of theater missile defense

5 interceptors and sensors if an anticipated result of the

6 launch of a missile under that test program would be re7 lease of debris in a land area of the United States outside

8 a designated Department of Defense test range.

9 (b) DEFINITION OF DEBRIS.—For purposes of sub10 section (a), the term ‘‘debris’’ does not include particulate

11 matter that is regulated for considerations of air quality.

Æ
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## November 25, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice



## 136866 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 136866 COA: 285359 Muskegon CC: 01-046247-FC THEODORE ANTHONY LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the June 18, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).

s1117 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 25, 2008

Clerk
<PAGE> 1


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

A.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.


                                           By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                           -----------------------
                                           Carroll E. Amos
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer


                                           Date:  May 27, 2004
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4529

To repeal the authority of the Mayor of the District of Columbia to requisition

unlimited funds from the Treasury of the United States to meet the

general expenses of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 26, 1994

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

Committee on the District of Columbia

A BILL

To repeal the authority of the Mayor of the District of

Columbia to requisition unlimited funds from the Treasury of the United States to meet the general expenses

of the District of Columbia, 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. REPEAL OF MAYOR’S AUTHORITY TO REQUISI4 TION ADVANCES FROM THE UNITED STATES

5 TREASURY.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Effective on the date of the enact7 ment of this Act, title VI of the District of Columbia Reve-
2

•HR 4529 IH

1 nue Act of 1939 (sec. 47–3401, D.C. Code) is hereby re2 pealed.

3 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The second sen4 tence of section 603(b)(1) of the District of Columbia Self5 Government and Governmental Reorganization Act (sec.

6 47–313(b)(1), D.C. Code) is amended by striking ‘‘, ex7 cept those funds’’ and all that follows and inserting a pe8 riod.

9 SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN FEDERAL PAYMENT TO DISTRICT BY

10 AMOUNTS BORROWED FROM TREASURY

11 PRIOR TO REPEAL.

12 Section 503 of the District of Columbia Self-Govern13 ment and Governmental Reorganization Act (sec. 47–

14 3406.1, D.C. Code) is amended by adding at the end the

15 following new subsection:

16 ‘‘(c) The amount authorized to be appropriated as the

17 annual Federal payment to the District of Columbia under

18 this section for a fiscal year shall be reduced by the

19 amount of any funds advanced to the District by the Sec20 retary of the Treasury on or after May 26, 1994, under

21 title VI of the District of Columbia Revenue Act of 1939

22 that have not been reimbursed by the District to the

23 Treasury of the United States as of the last day of the

24 previous fiscal year.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41376-41377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16869]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-1323; MM Docket No. 99-348; RM-9765]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Tallulah, LA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 248A to Tallulah, Louisiana, as 
that community's second local FM transmission service, in response to a 
petition for rule making filed by Joe Kool Broadcasting. See 64 FR 
73464, December 30, 1999. Coordinates used for Channel 248A at 
Tallulah, Louisiana, are 32-25-07 NL and 91-12-15 WL.

[[Page 41377]]


DATES: Effective July 31, 2000. A filing window for Channel 248A at 
Tallulah, Louisiana, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the 
issue of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by 
the Commission in a subsequent Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180. Questions related to the application filing process for 
Channel 248A at Tallulah, Louisiana, should be addressed to the Audio 
Services Division, (202) 418-2700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-348, adopted June 7, 2000, and 
released June 16, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Louisiana, 
is amended by adding Channel Channel 248A at Tallulah.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
 Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-16869 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U