alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00577- CR

Tom m y J ohns , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 403RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 30313 99, H ONO RAB LE BRENDA KENNEDY , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N A j ury found appellant Tommy J ohns g uilty of aggravated s exual assault. SeeT e x. Pen. Code Ann. § 22.021 (West Supp. 2004-05). The district c ourt assesse d punishment, enhanc ed by a pr e vio us fe lony

c on vic tio n, a t im

pr iso nme nt f

or fo rt y y e ars . Ap pe lla nt’ s c ourt -a

pp ointe d atto rn e y

fi le d a br ie f c on c lud ing

that th e a

pp eal is frivolous and without mer it. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by

prese nting a

profe ssional evaluation of t h e re co rd demonstrating why there are no arguable g rounds to be adva nced. Se e als o Pe ns on v . O hio , 4 88 U. S. 7 5 ( 19 88 ); Hi gh v . S tate , 573 S.W. 2d 807 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 78 ); Cur riev . S tate , 516 S.W .2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); J ac k so n v . S tate , 4 85 S.W. 2d

55 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 72 ); Ga ino us v . S tate , 4 3 6 S. W. 2 d

1 3 7 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 69 ). Ap pe lla nt r e c e ive d a

c op y of c ouns e l’ s b rief an d w a s a dv ise d o f h is r ig ht t o examine the appellate rec ord and to file a pro se br ief. No pr o se brief has bee n filed.2 We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd counsel’s br ief a

nd ag ree that the a

p p e a l is frivolous and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arg uably support the appe al. Counsel’s motion to wit hdrawis gr anted.

The judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pemberton Affir med Filed: June 16, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh
Written statements distributed at workshop

- Kyle Pitsor- National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), (see Comment Number 48)

- Philip J. Hopkinson- HVOLT Inc. (see Comment Number 49)

- Steven Nadel and Anna Shipley- American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE),

(see Comment Number 50)

- David Brender- Copper Development Association Inc. (CDA), (see Comment Number 51)

- Harry Misuriello- Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), (see Comment Number 52)

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 56.6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD BARON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1197 GEB GGH P

vs.

DR. USHA PAI, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed August 22, 2005, this court directed plaintiff to file a pretrial

statement on or before May 5, 2006. Plaintiff has not responded to the court’s order. The court

will therefore recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants are relieved from filing a pretrial statement.

2. The pretrial conference set for May 26, 2006 is vacated; and

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 07/12/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten days after service of the objections. The parties are advised

that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: 7/12/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

barr1197.fpt

Case 2:04-cv-01197-GEB-GGH Document 49 Filed 07/12/06 Page 2 of 2
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41051 Summary Calendar

ANTHONY K. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus A. JEFFCOAT, Captain; TERRY WILLIAMSON, Sergeant; JERRY P. ROGERS, Lieutenant; JOHN V. WELCH, JR., Correctional Officer III; WILLIAM R. WATTS, Captain; JUAN E VASQUEZ, Correctional Officer III; BOBBY D. LEEDER, Correctional Officer III; TIMOTHY D. GREEN, Sergeant; DAVID E. BARROW, Correctional Officer III; RONNIE D. GATEWOOD, Correctional Officer III; ROBERT HERRERA, Assistant Warden; HAROLD W. GARROW, Correctional Officer III; PAUL W. PACE, Major; FREDERICK L. BROWN, Correctional Officer III; UNIDENTIFIED CASTEEL, Correctional Officer III; JESSIE L. PIERCE, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CV-961

- - - - - - - - - - April 1, 1999 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Anthony K. Chapman appeals a dismissal of his cause of action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in favor of the namedNo. 98-41051 -2- defendants. He has not, however, briefed the issue that was the basis of the district court’s dismissal -- his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Claims not adequately argued in the body of the brief are deemed abandoned on appeal. See id. Because Chapman has not briefed the only potential issue on appeal, and because the face of the record does not reveal compelling factors mandating reversal, the decision of the district court should be affirmed. Chapman has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. A court should appoint counsel to represent a § 1983 appellant only in exceptional circumstances. Cupit v. Jones , 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987). Chapman’s factual and legal issues are not complex, and Chapman has shown himself capable of setting forth factual scenarios. He has not shown exceptional circumstances sufficient to require appointment of counsel. Chapman’s final motion is for a preliminary injunction “giving Appellant complete security.” Chapman has requested that various defendants be barred from ever being in Chapman’s presence because they allegedly made various threats against Chapman, although he does not allege physical violence was taken against him. Chapman has not met the heavy burden required for the granting of a preliminary injunction, and his motion should be denied. See Lakedreams v. Taylor , 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).No. 98-41051 -3- The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED. The motions of the appellant are DENIED.
Case No. 13,772.

#### TAYLOE v. WHARFIELD.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 248.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. Term, 1821.

Amendment of scire facias.

In one of the recitals in the writ of scire facias, the name of Tayloe had been written for that of Wharñeld, by mistake of the clerk.

THE COURT

(nem. con.) suffered it to be amended.
No. 50976.

#### Protest 50123-K/89988 of Wilson Sporting Goods Co. (Chicago).

*250Opinion by

Ekwall, 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 invoice should be converted at the buying rate in the New York market at boon 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 the entry. ■ The protest was sustained to this extent.
No. 63635.

protests 58/4654, etc. (New York).

#### Fastening Devices, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, X

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of studs and nails similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Fastening Devices, Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(40 Cust. Ct. 345, C.D. 2004), the merchandise was held dutiable as follows: (1) The items marked “A” at two-tenths of 1 cent per pound under the provision in paragraph 331, as modified by T.D. 51802, for nails, made of iron or steel wire, not less than 1 inch in length nor smaller than sixty-five one-thousandths of 1 inch in diameter; (2) the items marked “B” at 1% cents per pound under paragraph 331 of the act as steel nails, not specially provided for; and (3) the items marked “O” at 15 percent under the provision in paragraph 332, as modified, *supra,*for machined studs.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON DONNELL WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1282 DFL PAN P

vs.

MCKINNON, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On April 13, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections

to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-01282-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed April 13, 2005, are adopted in full;

and

2. This action is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Dated: 6/9/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

/will1282.804

Case 2:04-cv-01282-DFL-PAN Document 12 Filed 06/10/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 57693.

#### Kopf Manufacturing Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 208972-K (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of parts of saddles, which saddles are in part of pigskin and valued at more than $40 each, the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 54419, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
6

- 5

- 2016

U.S.	Dept.	of	Transportation, Docket	Operati ons	West	Building	Ground	Floor,
Room	w12

- 1 40	1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE., Washington,	DC	20590

Submitted	Electronically	via	the	Federal	Docket	Management	System	(FDMS)

Dear	Sir	or Madam:

Richard	Moore	DBA:	Heavenly	Pictures, has	prepared	the	following	addendum	to Exemption	# 12796	Docket	FAA

- 2015

- 2626

This	addendum	adds	any	aircraft	identified	on	the	List	of	Approved	Unmanned Aerial	Systems	(UAS)	under	Secti on	333	at	regulatory	docket	FAA

– 2007

– 3330	at www.regulations.gov ,	(which	is	updated	regularly)	when	weighing	less	than	55 pounds	including	payload. Allowing	the	use	of	any	aircraft	on	the	List	of	Approved	Unmanned	Systems	(UAS) has	been	used	recently	in	ex emptions:

• Exemption	No.	15233	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

– 2015

– 5418

• Exemption	No.	15234	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

– 2015

– 5360

• Exemption	No.	15235	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

– 2015

– 5272

• Exemption	No.	15236	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

– 2015

– 5253

• Exemption	No.	15237	Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA

– 2015

– 5236

The exemptions	listed	above	are	identical	in	nature	to Richard Moore ’ s exemption and	therefore	no	new	precedent	would	be	set	by	extending	the	same	List	to Richard

Moore

. This	addendum	makes	no	other	chan ges	to	the	currently	appr oved exemption	12796 and/or	operating	parameters. The	name	and	contact	information of	the	applicant	remains	the	same: Sincerely,

Rick	Moore
Exhibit 32.1 - Certifications

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection  with the quarterly  report of General Steel  Holdings,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Commission on August 15, 2005 (the  "Report"),  I, Zuo Sheng Yu, Chief Executive
Officer and  President of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-  Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

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

                                        By: /s/ Zuo Sheng Yu
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Zuo Sheng Yu
                                           Chief Executive Officer and President


DATED: August 15, 2005
Before the Second Division,

September 7, 1950

No. 54650.

#### Linden Studios et al. *v.*United States,

protests 115656-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain. *269items of the merchandise consist of sisal articles similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Goldberg & Seltzer, Inc.*(36 C. C. P. A. 64, C. A. D. 399), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 62560.

#### William Shaland et al. *v.*United States,

protests 327661-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of shell water flowers the same in all material respects as those the subject of Abstract 61346, except that the merchandise herein is in chief value of shell, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 2 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 3 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 4 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 5 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 6 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 7 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 8 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 9 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 10 of 11
Case 2:05-cr-00216-LS Document 167 Filed 12/10/07 Page 11 of 11
(Reap. Dec. 8664)

Entry No. 19092, etc.

#### Frank P. Dow Co., Inc., of L. A. *v.*United States

(Decided October 3, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation:

> It is stipulated and agreed by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the court, that at the time of exportation of the scrap mica involved herein such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States at the appraised value, less the item of shipping charges as invoiced in Reappraisement Nos. 269780-A, 269781-A, 269783-A and as to invoice No. 1 in Reappraisement No. 269782-A, and at the appraised value less the item of inland railway freight of RS 4720-10-0 as to invoice #2 in Reappraisement No. 269782-A and that there were no higher foreign values therefor as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the time of exportation thereof.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that these cases may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the item of shipping charges, as invoiced, as to the merchandise covered by reappraisements 269780-A, 269781-A, and 269783-A, and invoice No. 1 in reappraisement 269782-A, and the appraised value, less the item of inland railway freight of rupees 4720.10.0, as to the merchandise covered by invoice No. 2 in reappraisement 269782-A.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 51377.

#### Protests 515847-G, etc., of Stern Bros. (New York).

*208Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as the gloves which were the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333). In accordance therewith the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
The City of San 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 30, 2014

No. 04-13-00720-CV

Marilyn STEWART,

Appellant

v.

THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-09344

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant seeks to appeal the trial court’s order granting a permanent injunction and 

authorizing the City of San Antonio to demolish the structure on the property located at 1010 

Denver, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. The order was signed on October 1, 2013. It is 

unclear from the record whether the demolition has occurred. The demolition of the structure 

would moot this appeal. Gruebel v. City of Nacogdoches, No. 12-04-00176-CV, 2005 WL 

612719, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 16, 2005, no pet.). It is therefore ORDERED that 

appellant file a written response in this court no later than fifteen days from the date of this order 

stating whether this appeal has become moot by the demolition of the structure. The City of San 

Antonio is also ORDERED to file a written response in this court no later than fifteen days from 

the date of this order providing information on the current status of the structure.

_________________________________

Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

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

court on this 30th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**ESSEX
      PORTFOLIO, L.P.**


**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
      Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), I, Michael T. Dance,
      hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the “Form 10-Q”) of Essex
      Portfolio, L.P. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
      as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Essex Portfolio,
      L.P. at the dates of and for the periods presented.











Date:
      November 7,
      2007                                                    /s/
      Michael T. Dance


Michael
      T. Dance


Chief
      Financial Officer, Executive
      Vice President,


Essex
      Property Trust, Inc., general partner of


Essex
      Portfolio, L.P.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4290 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4290

                 To permit voluntary economic activity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 8, 2024

   Mr. Paul introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 To permit voluntary economic activity.

    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 ``Antitrust Freedom Act of 2024''.

SEC. 2. VOLUNTARY ECONOMIC COORDINATION BY INDIVIDUALS.

    The Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 
12 et seq.), and section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 
U.S.C. 45) shall not be construed to prohibit, ban, or otherwise extend 
to any voluntary economic coordination, cooperation, agreement, or 
other association, compact, contract, or covenant entered into by or 
between any individual or group of individuals.
                                 <all>
```
AIRWAYS

March 19, 2014 Michael F. Martin Essential Air Service Program Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC20590 

### RE: EASat Altoona, PA

EASat Johnston, PA EASat Greenbrier/White Sulphur Springs, WV EA5at Beckley, WV EASat Clarksburg/Fairmont, WV EA5at Morgantown, WV EASat Staunton, VA Docket Number: 00T-OST-2002-11446 Docket Number: 00T-OST-2002-11451 Docket Number: 00T-OST-2003-15553 Docket Number: 00T-OST-1997-2761 Docket Number: 00T-OST-2005-20736 Docket Number: 00T-05T-2005-20735 Docket Number: 00T-OST-2002-11376 Silver Airways, the current EA5 provider to the seven communities listed above, isworking diligently to evaluate and prepare aservice proposal in response to DOT Orders 2014-2-6 and 2014-2-13. The current due date for both proposals is March 21, 2014. Silver respectfully requests an extension until April 17, 2014 for submitting its EASproposal for these markets. We appreciate your expedited consideration of this request. Sincerely,

Travis Christ Chief Commercial Officer Silver Airways

1100 Lee Wagener Boulevard, Suite 200, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315