alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered March 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00778-CR

BRADLEY ALLEN KELLER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-53364-L

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due on October 26, 2018. When it was not filed, the Court sent 

an October 30, 2018 written notice to Victoria Franklin who informed us Debi Harris was the 

court reporter and that Ms. Franklin had emailed Ms. Harris regarding the record being due. On 

December 20, 2018, we ordered Ms. Harris to file the reporter’s record by January 3, 2019. The 

record was not filed, and we had no communication from Ms. Harris. Therefore, on March 15, 

2019, we ordered court reporter Debi Harris not to sit as a court reporter until she filed the 

complete reporter’s record in this appeal.

On March 18, 2019, the following occurred: 
 Ms. Harris contacted the Court for the first time to inform us that, in spite of the 

representation made by official court reporter Victoria Franklin, Ms. Harris was 

not the court reporter who reported the case.

 Shaina Fowler filed a letter stating she was, in fact, “one of the court reporters” 

who reported the case and that she was responsible for the delay in the record 

being filed.

 The six-volume reporter’s record was filed; however, missing from the record are 

State’s Exhibit #9, labeled “CD of medical records;” State’s Exhibit #15, labeled 

“CD of Defendant’s Interview;” and State’s Exhibit #16, labeled “CD of Victim 

Interview.” 

We VACATE our March 15, 2019 order to the extent it orders Debi Harris not to sit. We 

ORDER Ms. Fowler to file a supplemental reporter’s record containing the three missing 

exhibits (State’s Exhibits #9, #15, and #16) by March 22, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. Should Ms. 

Fowler fail to do so, the Court will order she not sit until the missing exhibits are filed.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Honorable Carter Thompson, 

Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 5; the Honorable Pam Luther, County Court of 

Criminal Appeals No. 2; Debi Harris, court reporter; Victoria Franklin, official court reporter, 

Criminal District Court No. 5; Sharina Fowler, Official Court Reporter, County Court of 

Criminal Appeals No. 2; the Dallas County Auditor’s Office; and counsel for all parties.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### § 32.52-1 Bilge pumps on tank vessels constructed or converted on or after November 19, 1952—TB/ALL.

The number and arrangement of bilge pumps on each tank vessel shall conform to the requirements of subchapter F (Marine Engineering) of this chapter, except as hereinafter provided in this subpart.
§ 68.60 Eligibility of a vessel for a coastwise endorsement under this subpart. ( a ) To be eligible for a coastwise endorsement under 46 U.S.C. 12106(e) and to operate in coastwise trade under 46 U.S.C. 12106(e) and 12110(b), a vessel must meet the following: ( 1 ) The vessel is eligible for documentation under 46 U.S.C. 12102.
( 2 ) The vessel is eligible for a coastwise endorsement under § 67.19(c) of this chapter and has not lost coastwise eligibility under § 67.19(d) of this chapter.
( 3 ) The person that owns the vessel (or, if the vessel is owned by a trust or similar arrangement, the beneficiary of the trust or similar arrangement) makes the certification in § 68.65.
( 4 ) The person that owns the vessel has transferred to a qualified U.S. citizen under 46 U.S.C. app. 802 full possession, control, and command of the vessel through a demise charter in which the demise charterer is considered the owner *pro hac vice* during the term of the charter.
( 5 ) The charterer must certify to the Director, National Vessel Documentation Center, that the charterer is a citizen of the United States for engaging in the coastwise trade under 46 U.S.C. app. 802.
( 6 ) The demise charter is for a period of at least 3 years, unless a shorter period is authorized by the Director, National Vessel Documentation Center, under circumstances such as— ( i ) When the vessel's remaining life would not support a charter of 3 years; or
( ii ) To preserve the use or possession of the vessel.
( b ) To apply for a coastwise endorsement for a vessel under a demise charter, see § 68.70 and, for a barge, see § 68.75.
Note to § 68.60 :
Section 608(b) of Public Law 108-293 provides special requirements for certain vessels in the Alaska trade.
#### Bogert et al. v. Adams et al.

1. Appellate Pbactice — Jubisdictiok ok Appeal.

Thei'e can be no 'appeal to this court from a final judgment in favor of the party appealing.

2. Same.

No appeal lies from an order dissolving an attachment.

3. Same.

Neither joinder in error nor consent of parties can confer jurisdiction on this court by appeal.

'4. Same — Wbit oe Ebbob.

,In order that proceedings resulting in the dissolution of an attachment may be reviewed, the whole case must be brought up by writ of error.

*Appeal from the District Court of Pueblo County.*

Messrs. White & Essex and Mr. T. O. Bogert, for appellants.

Messrs. Drake & Collins, for appellees.

Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The final judgment in this case was in favor of the appellants ; but an attachment -which, they had procured in aid of their suit was dissolved-, and it is from the order dissolving the attachment that this-appeal was taken. There can be no -appeal to this court except from a final judgment. Here the final judgment was for the appellants, and therefore-could not be appealed from by them. *Hall v. Pay Rock C. M. Co.,*6 Colo. 81.

The order dissolving the attachment was interlocutory, and *511no appeal lies from such an order. *Hagerman v. Moore,*2 Colo. App. 83.

“ Appeals are the creatures of the statute; neither joinder in error nor the consent of parties can confer jurisdiction on this court *by*appeal.” *Gordon v. Gray,*19 Colo. 167.

If the attachment was erroneously dissolved, in order that the proceedings resulting in its dissolution may be reviewed by this court, the whole case must be brought here by writ of error. The appeal w\ll be dismissed, with leave to-the plaintiffs to proceed further in the cause as they may be advised.

*Dismissed.*
§ 44.300 Applicability. This subpart applies to each self-propelled hopper dredge— ( a ) For which a working freeboard assignment is desired after January 1, 1990; and
( b ) That operates with a working freeboard assigned under this subpart.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          69,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   64,744
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               242,793
<PP&E>                                          56,008
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 781,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          836,892
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,382
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   781,645
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,287
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,906
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (101,606)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (101,606)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, March 9, 1995 (41), Para 41.31 Leave of Absence]
[Page 364]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.41.31  leave of absence

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted--
  To Mr. LoBIONDO, for today until 4 p.m.; and
  To Mrs. CUBIN, for today after 2:50 p.m. and March 10.
  And then,
```
# C_2014159EN.01002201.xml

| 26.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 April 2014 — ABN Amro Group v Commission

(Case T-319/11) (1)

1

((State aid - Financial sector - Aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State - Article 107(3)(b) TFEU - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market - Conditions of authorisation of the aid - Prohibition of carrying out acquisitions - Conformity with the Commission’s notices concerning aid to the financial sector in the context of the financial crisis - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Principle of sound administration - Duty to state reasons - Right of property))

2014/C 159/29

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ABN Amro Group NV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: W. Knibbeler and P. van den Berg, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment in part of Commission Decision 2011/823/EU of 5 April 2011 on the measures C 11/09 (ex NN 53b/08, NN 2/10 and N 19/10) implemented by the Dutch State for ABN Amro Group NV (created following the merger between Fortis Bank Nederland and ABN Amro N) (OJ 2011 L 333, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ABN Amro Group NV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ABN Amro Group NV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1598 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1598

   To establish a definition of ``made in America or the equivalent 
                 thereof'' for purposes of Federal law.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 9, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To establish a definition of ``made in America or the equivalent 
                 thereof'' for purposes of Federal law.
    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 ``Made in America Clarification Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. BUY AMERICAN.

    For purposes of title III of the Act of March 3, 1933 (commonly 
known as the ``Buy American Act'') (41 U.S.C. 10a-10d), any other 
Federal law or regulation which governs the acquisition of products for 
the Federal Government, or for any Federal law or regulation which 
prescribes a standard for labeling of products as being made in America 
or an equivalent standard, the term ``made in America or the equivalent 
thereof'' means--
            (1) an unmanufactured end product mined or produced in the 
        United States; or
            (2) an end product manufactured in the United States if the 
        value of its components mined, produced, or manufactured in the 
        United States equals 65 percent or more of the total value of 
        all of its components.
                                 <all>
```
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending August 19, 2006

|Filer                         | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                        | End of Comment Period                          
|----------------------------- | ----------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|FIRST HAWLEY BANCSHARES, INC. | CIC         | Jon W. Neumann, Hawley, Minnesota, to gain control of First Hawley Bancshares, Inc., Hawley, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly gain control of First National Bank, Hawley, Minnesota. | Newspaper:08/21/2006Federal Register:08/18/2006
|Newspaper:                    | 08/21/2006 
|Federal Register:             | 08/18/2006 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
Argued May 29,

affirmed June 25, 1918.

#### FIRST SAVINGS BANK OF ALBANY *v.*MACNEILL.

(173 Pac. 573.)

Trial — Direction of Verdict — Conflicting Evidence.

1. Where there was evidence upon both sides of the issue, the judge properly refused to give a peremptory instruction.

Appeal and Error — Scope of Review — Conflicting Evidence.

2. Where there is evidence upon both sides of the issue, the court on appeal is powerless to disturb the verdict.

From Linn: Percy R. Kelly, Judge.

*217Department 1.

The First Savings Bank, a corporation, brought this action to recover on a promissory note which the defendant, John Macneill, had executed and delivered to the bank.

In his answer Macneill alleged that the note was without consideration and that he had been induced to sign it through fraud and deceit. The bank claimed that the note was given on account-of delinquent interest due from a third party. The verdict of the jury was for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

For appellant there was a brief over the names of *Messrs. Weatherford & Weatherford*and *Mr. Edward F. Bailey,*with an oral argument by *Mr. James K. Weatherford.*

For respondent there was a brief over the name of *Messrs. Hill é Marks,*with an oral argument by *Mr. Gale S. Hill.*

PER CURIAM. —

1, 2. The plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict for it for the amount of the note together with whatever sum might be found to be'reasonable as attorney’s fees. The refusal to give this requested instruction is the only error assigned by the plaintiff. There ivas evidence to support the position of the plaintiff and there was also evidence to support the position taken by the defendant; and since there was evidence upon both sides of the issue the circuit judge properly refused to give the instruction requested by the plaintiff and for the same reason we are powerless to disturb the verdict of the jury: *Sullivan*v. *Wakefield,*65 *218Or. 528, 535 (133 Pac. 641); *West*v. *Kern,*88 Or. 247 (171 Pac. 413, 416, 1050). Unquestionably, the jurors understood wbat they were called upon to decide, for the instructions given by the trial court were clear and complete and were fair to both litigants. A discussion of the evidence would serve no good purpose but it is sufficient to say that the entire record has been examined; and since there was evidence for the defendant as well as evidence for the plaintiff, and no prejudicial error occurred during the trial, the verdict of the jury is conclusive upon us and the necessary result is that the judgment appealed from must be affirmed. Affirmed.

Bean, J., sitting for McBride, C. J.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 9
Federal Reserve Bank of: Minneapolis

## Filings received during the week ending April 17, 2010

|Filer                        | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                              
|---------------------------- | -------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|LAKE CENTRAL FINANCIAL, INC. | 4c8            | Lake Central Financial, Inc., Annandale, Minnesota to engage, de novo, in extending credit and servicing loans. | Newspaper:Not applicableFederal Register:05/04/2010
|Newspaper:                   | Not applicable
|Federal Register:            | 05/04/2010    

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                        | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------------------- | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FARMERS ST BK, FAITH, SOUTH DAKOTA            | 287650 | 12/07/2009 | 04/02/2010     | S         | Small Bank 
|FIRST SECURITY BK MISSOULA, MISSOULA, MONTANA | 652351 | 08/17/2009 | 12/11/2009     | O         | Int Sm Bank
|HEARTLAND ST BK, EDGELEY, NORTH DAKOTA        | 837653 | 11/30/2009 | 03/16/2010     | S         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
*Thursday, January 7, 1999*

MOTION DOCKET

98-2061.

#### State v. Franklin.

Montgomery C.P. No. 97CR1139. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Upon consideration of appellant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of the record,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that the motion for extension of time for transmission of the record be, and hereby is, granted, and the time for transmitting the record is extended to February 3, 1999. No further extensions will be granted.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-30281

Summary Calendar

BRANDON SCOTT LAVERGNE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CLAIRE TAYLOR; ADVERTISER MEDIA NETWORK,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 6:13-CV-2193

Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Brandon Scott Lavergne, Louisiana prisoner # 424229, pled guilty to two 

counts of first degree murder for the murders of Michaela Shunick and Lisa 

Pate. Thereafter, Lavergne filed a civil rights complaint against Claire Taylor 

and the Advertiser Media Network. The district court treated Lavergne’s 

complaint as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and dismissed his claims for 

failure to state a claim because Taylor, a private citizen, and The Advertiser, a 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-30281 Document: 00512823853 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/03/2014
No. 14-30281

private newspaper, were not state actors and had not otherwise acted “under 

color of law” within the meaning of Section 1983. To the extent Lavergne 

raised claims under Louisiana state law, those claims were dismissed without 

prejudice. 

On appeal, Lavergne repeats his claims of libel and slander against 

Taylor and The Advertiser, and he contends that the district court erred in 

refusing to allow him to amend his complaint, as he was entitled to do as a 

matter of right, or to appoint him counsel. This court reviews a dismissal for 

failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo, applying the 

same standard that is used to review a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Lavergne has not challenged the district court’s determination that the 

defendants were not state actors for Section 1983 purposes or that it could not 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his state law claims because complete 

diversity was lacking. Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro 

se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 

985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Lavergne has therefore failed to show that 

the district court abused its discretion in denying Lavergne’s motion to appoint 

counsel or his motion to amend his complaint. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 

F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982); Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 417 (5th Cir. 

2013). To the extent Lavergne raises new claims on appeal, we do not address 

them. See Williams v. Ballard, 466 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir. 2006).

Lavergne’s motion to appoint counsel is DENIED, and the district court’s 

judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 14-30281 Document: 00512823853 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/03/2014