alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

## NO. 12

- 22

- 00087

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LATONYA WEEMS , APP E

LLANT

V.

MOSAIC APARTMENTS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 1

JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PE R CURIAM

T his appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply wit h t he Texas R ules of App ellate

Procedure. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.

La T onya Weems , acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal on March 10 , 2022

. P ursuant to Rule 32.1, Apppellant ’ s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal

was pe rfect ed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On March 10
, Appellant was asked to file a docketing statement within seven days and on March 2 9, was asked to file the docketing statement immediately.

. On April 13
, the Clerk of this C ourt issued a noti ce advi sing A ppella nt that the docketing statement was past due. The notice pr ovided th at unless the docketing statement was

filed on or before April 25 , the appeal would be presented for dismissal in a ccordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Proce dure 42 .3. The date for fil ing the docketing statement has passed, and Appellant has n ot complied with the Court’ s request. Because Appellan t failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 32.1, the appe al is

dismiss ed

. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (a fter giving ten da ys ’ notice
, appe ll ate court may

1 This cas e was transferred to this Court from the Ninth Court of Appeals in Be a umont , Texas, pursuant to a docket equalization order. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 (West 2013)

.2 dismiss appeal because appellant failed to comp ly wit h a requiremen t o f the appellate rules, a

cour t order, or a notice from the clerk requiring a response or other actio n within a speci fied

time )

. Opinion delivered May 4, 2022. Panel consi sted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2 Even a pro se litigant is he ld to the same standar ds as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rule s of procedure

. Se e Muham med v. Plai ns Pipeline, L.P. , No. 12

- 16

- 00189

- CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)

.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFT H COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 4 , 2022

NO. 12

- 2 2

- 00087

- CV

LATONYA WEEMS , Appellant V. MOSAIC AP ARTMENTS , Appellee

Ap peal from the County Court at Law No

. 1
of Jeff erson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 137017 )

THIS CAU SE came on to be he ard on the appellate re cord, and the same being consider ed, it is the opinion of this Court th at the ap peal should be dismissed.

It is therefo re ORDERED, ADJUDGED a nd DECREED by this Cou rt t hat this appeal be, and the same is, he reby dism issed ; and that th is decision be certifie d to t he court

below for observance. By per cur iam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-2738

_____________________________

ROBBIE GLENN MURPHY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

June 11, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joanna Aurica Mauer, 

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Sharon Traxler, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL

: NO. 03-315

v. :

:

CALVIN WILLIAM :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of February, 2011, after consideration of petitioner Calvin

William’s objections to the Report and Recommendation filed November 29, 2010, it is

ORDERED as follows:

(1) that petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and the Report and

Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

(2) that petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is DENIED; and 

(3) that a certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE because petitioner has

failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

/s/ THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR.

THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.
RVAAC	Communications	Sub-committee #10

November	6,	2014

1:00-3:00	PM

Agenda

Call-in	Number: 888-396-7314	or	773-756-0935

Password: 8020595

CART: www.streamtext.net/player?event=ACCESSBOARD110614

1. Welcome	and	Self-introductions

2. Brief	Review	of	October	2 meeting

a. Discussion	of advertisements	and	accessibility	when	part	of	a	prerecorded	audible	message.	Print	advertisements not	required	to	

be	accessible.

b. Discussions	of	dynamic	audible	messages	– make them	accessible	

if	possible or	pre-record	messages	to	cover	possible	emergencies.

c. Discussion	of	back-up	power	for	the	VMS	system.

d. Possible	volunteers	for	a	potential	list	of	recommendations	for	

DOT	&	FRA.

3. Continue	discussions	and	“Homework”	reports.

4. Next	meeting	– December	4th.

5. Adjourn	

No	Handouts
No. 64030.

protest 59/19150 (New York).

#### Inter-Maritime Forwarding Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FREDERICK T. RAY, III : CIVIL ACTION

 :

v. :

 : 

MAJOR WALTER REED, et al. : NO. 04-cv-00810-JF

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of November 2010, upon

consideration of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, converted to a

motion for summary judgment, and the response thereto, IT is

ORDERED:

That the Motion is GRANTED for the reasons stated in

the accompanying memorandum. The Complaint is DISMISSED. The

Clerk is directed to mark the case-file CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ John P. Fullam 

John P. Fullam, Sr. J.
EXHIBIT10.47**FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DRUG DISCOVERY AGREEMENT**     This First Amendment is entered into by and between SGX Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (formerly knownas Structural GenomiX, Inc.) (“SGX”) and Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Therapeutics, Inc. (“CFFT”) andis effective as of March 1, 2007 (“Amendment Effective Date”). Collectively, SGX and CFFT arereferred to hereinafter as the “Parties”.     WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Drug Discovery Agreement dated as of January 1, 2005(the “DDA”); and     WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the DDA in the manner hereinafter provided; and     WHEREAS, except for this First Amendment, the DDA shall be otherwise unchanged and remain infull force and effect.     NOW THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:     1. Deletion of Section 7.1. Section 7.1 is hereby deleted and after the effectivedate of this First Amendment, numbered Section 7.1 shall be intentionally omitted.     2. Without Cause Termination. Section 7.2 shall be amended to read as follows:          “7.2 Without Cause Termination. CFFT may terminate this Agreement uponsixty (60) days notice to SGX. In the event of such termination, no further amountshall be payable by CFFT to SGX except for any outstanding accrued liabilitiesexisting as of the effective date of termination.”
 

 
     3. Corresponding Amendments.          a. Section 2.25 shall be amended by deleting the word “Hits”.
No. 64039.

protest 58/721 (New York).

#### M. Adler’s Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with oral stipulation of counsel that the merchandise identified as article Nos. 53047, 53048-9-50, 51596, and 53341 consists of figures in chief value of decorated porcelain ware and does not contain 25 percent or more of calcined bone, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained as to said articles.
No. 50874.

#### Protests 58144-K, etc., of Brockman & Schloss, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Eicwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the court found that the facts herein agreed upon were such as to bring the case within the holding in *John Barr*v. *United States*(11 Cust. Ct. 88, C. D. 801), which record was incorporated herein. (See *John Barr*v. *United States,*324 U. S. 83, decided February 5, 1945.) In accordance therewith it was held that the currency of the invoices should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at noon on the day of exportation (the “free” rate of exchange for pounds sterling), as certified by the Federal Reserve bank and set forth by the collector on each of the entries. The protests were sustained to this-extent.
No. 65389.

#### H. Hudson Dobson, Inc., and Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 59/27432 and 59/26096 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of metal figures or images of animate objects, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

WALKER : 02-3868

SIMON : 02-3887

GOTO : 02-3922

JOHNSON, et al. : 02-3932

HOSOKAWA : 02-3959

KILCY : 02-3964

BYRON : 02-4108

ROCHA, et al. : 02-4121

CAVITT : 02-4139

HIBMA-CANARIO, et al. : 02-4152

BAILEY, et al. : 02-4188

BOSSI, et al. : 02-4234

STEINHAUER, et al. : 02-4257

SKEELS, et al. : 02-4274

WALKER, et al. : 02-4279

FRIEDEN, et al. : 02-4310

DIMANLANTA : 02-4313

:

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04121-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota..

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

R. Barclay Surrick

Case 2:02-cv-04121-RBS Document 2 Filed 07/11/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 58437.

protest 206527-K (New York).

#### Daniel F. Young, Inc., and Monogram Film Exchange *v.*United States,

*393Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the facts are similar to those involved in Abstract 57579, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

ROCHELLE : 02-3867

MONTGOMERY : 02-3889

HINES : 02-3901

KARI, et al. : 02-3926

HABERMAN : 02-3936

MILEY : 02-3951

FRANCO, et al. : 02-3975

DAVIS : 02-4113

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4116

HERNANDEZ, et al. : 02-4126

QUILLEN, et al. : 02-4167

SIMMONS, et al. : 02-4174

BIEDERMAN : 02-4194

DRY, et al. : 02-4225

COOK : 02-4237

STEFAN, et al. : 02-4277

WALKER, et al. : 02-4283

DUNCAN, et al. : 02-4301

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

Case 2:02-cv-04126-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

Stewart Dalzell, S.J.

Case 2:02-cv-04126-SD Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
Before the Second Division,

June 24, 1944

No. 49554.

#### Protests 998849-G, etc., of Henry V. Allien & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

When the cases were called for hearing it was agreed in open court that certain of the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that involved in *Meyer*v. *United States (6*Cust. Ct. 191, C. D. 459), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim that the merchandise is woven fabrics wholly or in chief value of any of the materials provided for in paragraph 385, and therefore dutiable at 40 percent under paragraph 385 as modified, was sustained.
No. 62993.

#### The Fan Co. and National Carloading Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 329709-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the merchandise was held dutiable, as claimed, at the applicable rates in effect on the respective dates of importation under the pertinent trade agreements.
No. 64026.

protest 58/17909 (Detroit).

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
ALD-257 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-2710

___________

DR. CHANDAN S. VORA,

Appellant

v.

DR. TEJAS PATEL, Psychiatric Ward Director; A. OANDASAN, Psychiatric Ward 

Director; CONEMAUGH VALLEY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, with their staff

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 11-cv-00116)

District Judge: Honorable Gustave Diamond

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action

Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

August 4, 2011

Before: SCIRICA, HARDIMAN and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed August 25, 2011)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

Dr. Chandan S. Vora appeals pro se from the District Court’s sua sponte dismissal 

of a civil rights complaint. For the reasons that follow, we will summarily affirm the 
2

District Court’s judgment.

In the complaint, Dr. Vora alleged that she received improper medical treatment, 

including the forced administration of antipsychotic medication, while confined in the 

psychiatric ward at Connemaugh Valley Memorial Hospital. She named as defendants 

the Hospital and two of the doctors who treated her. The District Court granted Dr. 

Vora’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, but concluded that her “allegations . . . 

seek to attack matters over which this court lacks jurisdiction and otherwise fail to state a 

claim upon which relief can be granted.” Accordingly, the District Court dismissed the 

complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Dr. Vora appealed.

We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Upon de novo 

review of the record and careful consideration of Dr. Vora’s notice of appeal and other 

submissions, we conclude that there is no substantial question presented on appeal and 

that summary action is warranted. See LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. Even if the defendants 

were state actors, none of their alleged conduct shocks the conscience. See Benn v. 

Universal Health System, Inc., 371 F.3d 165, 175 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that 

administration of antipsychotic drugs was not shocking to the conscience where plaintiff 

did not allege that he objected to the medication). In addition, we conclude that granting 

Dr. Vora leave to amend the complaint in the instant case would have been futile. See

Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002). 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that no substantial question is presented by 
3

this appeal. See I.O.P. 10.6. Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s 

judgment.
Case No. 13,076.

#### SMITH v. MANUFACTURERS’ NAT. BANK.

[See Case No. 9,051.]
No. 64009.

protests 189448-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Schenley Import Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 40013 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
LUIS ARMANDO LOPEZ

- SANDOVAL , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 653

- 1

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Luis Armando Lopez

- Sandoval has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Lopez

- Sandoval h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

* 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 August 18, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-40013 Document: 00514122892 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2017No. 17

- 40013

2 presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-40013 Document: 00514122892 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2017
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

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.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

h0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

142223

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142223 COA: 294436 Oakland CC: 2008-220963-FC ANTHONY LACALAMITA, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2010 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 31  CERTIFICATION  I, Richard Jordan, certify that:  1.     I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Wataire International, Inc. for the year ended September 30, 2006;  2.     Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.     Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.     The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:  a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)   Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to           materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)   All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)   Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.  Date:  January 19, 2007   By: /s/  Richard Jordan ------------------------------- Richard Jordan, Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-31263 Summary Calendar

MARVIN ROLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus PETRO DRIVE INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2075

- - - - - - - - - - September 4, 1996 Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The appellant Marvin Rollins appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing his suit filed pursuant to the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 688, against the appellee, Petro Drive, Incorporated (Petro-Drive). The principal issue in this appeal is whether Rollins raised a fact issue as to his status as a seaman in order to maintain his action under the Jones Act. We have reviewed the record and arguments on appeal and find noNo. 95-31263 -2- reversible error. The judgment of the district court is affirmed for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling granting summary judgment for Petro-Drive. See Rollins v. Petro-Drive, Inc. , No. 94-2075 (W.D. La. Oct. 30, 1995). AFFIRMED.