alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00028

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.M.W., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 6th District Court

Lamar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 81876

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

James H. Williams, III, acting pro se, has filed an appeal from a j udgment involving a

child support obligation. The clerk’s record was filed on April 25, 2014. Williams did not

request a reporter’s record. In response to questions posed by this Court, Williams stated in a

conversation with our clerk’s office on June 2 3, 2014, that he desired to dismiss his appeal. He

stated that he would send a letter or fax confirming this. No letter or fax was received.

We contacted Williams by letter on July 3, informing him that if he wished to pursue his

appeal, he needed to send this Court a letter showing that he was actively working to advance his

case. His letter was due to be received by this Court by July 14, 2014. We warned him at that

time that if we received no response by that date, his appeal would be dismissed pu rsuant to Rule

42.3(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P 42.3(c). As of the date of

this opinion, Williams has not contacted this Court.

We dismiss t he appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: July 23, 2014

Date Decided: July 24, 2014
Before the Third Division,

October 17, 1957

No. 61285.

protest 307920-K (New York).

#### Van Norden & Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Richardson, J.

It was stipulated that a memorandum of the collector, stating that the merchandise was exported from customs custody, may be received in evidence, and the protest submitted. Section 8.49 (e), Customs Regulations of 1943, as amended, reads as follows: “Merchandise regularly entered in good faith and subsequently found to be prohibited entry under any law of the United States, if exported under customs supervision in accordance with the regulations set forth in sections 18.25 and 18.26, is exempt from duty and any duties collected thereon shall be refunded.” In accordance with the facts and stipulation of counsel and on the authority of section 8.49 (e), *supra,*the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

May 11, 2016

No. 04

- 15

- 00721

- CR

Jimmy James BRITE

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bex ar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2015CR1419 Honorable Ray Olivarri, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The record was due on February 27, 2016. We granted two previous extensions of time to file the reporter’s record, and the record was most recently due on April 29, 2016. On Ma y 9

, 201 6
, c ourt reporter Sachiko Nagao

- Trevi ñ o filed a third motion for an extension of time to file the reporter’s record . She explained that she recently broke her wrist, and she requested an extension of the due date until May 23 , 2016 , for a total extension of eighty

- six days

. The court reporter’s request is GRANTED

. The reporter’s record must be filed with this court not later than May 23 , 2016

. See id. R. 35.3(c) (limiting an extension to thirty days in an ordinary appeal).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of May, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
CASE DIGEST: NTEU, 73 FLRA 816

The Union grieved an Agency memorandum directing all employees, including 

“home-based” employees, to report to their official duty stations once per pay period. 

The Arbitrator denied the grievance, rejecting the Union’s interpretation of telework 

provisions in the parties’ agreement and, alternatively, concluding the Union’s 

interpretation conflicted with management rights under the Federal Service 

Labor-Management Relations Statute. 

The Union filed exceptions alleging the award was based on several nonfacts and 

conflicted with Authority precedent concerning repudiation and management rights. 

Because the Union failed to demonstrate that the award was based on nonfacts, the 

Authority denied these exceptions. And because the Union did not prove the Agency 

violated the agreement, the Authority denied its repudiation exception. As the Arbitrator 

relied on separate and independent bases to deny the Union’s grievance, and the Union 

did not establish that the first basis was deficient, the Authority declined to consider the 

Union’s management-rights exception challenging the second basis.

Chairman Grundmann concurred.

This case digest is a summary of a decision issued by the Federal Labor Relations 

Authority, with a short description of the issues and facts of the case. Descriptions 

contained in this case digest are for informational purposes only, do not constitute legal 

precedent, and are not intended to be a substitute for the opinion of the Authority.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 42 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3567]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34999]


Idaho & Sedalia Transportation Company, LLC--Lease Exemption--RCL 
Rocks, LLC

    Idaho & Sedalia Transportation Company, LLC (I&S), a noncarrier, 
has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to 
acquire (by lease), pursuant to an agreement with RCL Rocks, LLC (RCL), 
approximately 5.5 miles of rail line, located at Union Pacific Railroad 
Company's Valentine Subdivision, milepost 741, near Sierra Blanca, TX.
    The issue line comprises the East Leg Wye, the West Leg Wye, the 
Meridian Aggregate Lead, and the Long Runaround and Short Runaround 
Tracks beginning at milepost 741. The line is further identified as 
Track Numbers 790, 791, 792, 793, 794, and 795. I&S is leasing the line 
from RCL for continued rail operations. I&S states that the lease will 
not result in significant changes in carrier operations.
    I&S certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of the 
transaction will not exceed $5 million and will not result in the 
creation of a Class II or Class I carrier. I&S states that it intends 
to consummate the transaction and effectuate the lease in April 2007 or 
before then. The earliest this transaction may be consummated is the 
March 23, 2007 effective date of the exemption (30 days after the 
exemption was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the transaction. 
Petitions for stay must be filed no later than March 16, 2007 (at least 
7 days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34999, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423. In addition, a copy of 
each pleading must be served on W. Robert Dyer, Jr., Gardere Wynne 
Sewell, LLP, 1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000, Dallas, TX 75201.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: February 23, 2007.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3567 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic 

and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of 

any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go 

to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 20-BG-45

IN RE OLADIPO AKIN-DEKO

2019 DDN 306

A Member of the Bar of the

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Registration No. 983020

BEFORE: Glickman and Thompson, Associate Judges, and Washington, Senior 

Judge. 

O R D E R

(FILED - July 30, 2020)

On consideration of the certified order from the United States District Court 

for the District of Maryland indefinitely suspending respondent from the practice of 

law in that jurisdiction; this court’s January 29, 2020, order suspending respondent 

pending resolution of this matter and directing him to show cause why equivalent 

reciprocal discipline in the form of an indefinite suspension with a fitness 

requirement and the right to seek reinstatement after five years or reinstatement by 

the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, whichever occurs first, 

should not be imposed and the response thereto requesting that no discipline be 

imposed and that his response be filed under seal; the statement of Disciplinary 

Counsel; and it appearing respondent has not filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, §14(g)

affidavit, it is 

ORDERED that the Clerk shall file respondent’s response to the court’s show 

cause order under seal. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that OlaDipo Akin-Deko is hereby indefinitely 

suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia with reinstatement 

contingent upon a showing of fitness. Respondent can seek reinstatement after five 

years or after reinstatement by the United States District Court for the District of 
Maryland, whichever occurs first. To the extent respondent argues mitigating 

circumstances should be considered, he failed to either raise these circumstances in 

the originating court or accept the offer to change his membership to inactive status. 

Reciprocal disciplinary proceedings are the improper forum to raise this mitigation 

defense, see In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, 

reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”). 

To the extent respondent states he is seeking reinstatement by the United States 

District Court for the District of Maryland, that fact does not impact the imposition 

of reciprocal discipline, only when reinstatement may be sought. Because 

respondent failed to rebut the presumption that reciprocal discipline should be 

imposed, we impose reciprocal discipline. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 

2010), and In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of 

identical reciprocal discipline applies unless one of the exceptions is established). 

It is 

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement respondent’s 

suspension will not begin to run until such time as he files an affidavit that fully 

complies with the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g). 

PER CURIAM
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 51095 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
EVARISTO MARTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06

- CR

- 2043

- 1

Before REAVLEY, CLEMENT, and H O, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Evaristo Martinez 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).
Martinez h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed couns el’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.

* 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 February 20 , 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-51095 Document: 00514353642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/20/2018No. 16

- 51095

2 Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is

excu sed from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 16-51095 Document: 00514353642 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/20/2018
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOSHUA LEE STEWART,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 256 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
*****You may also purchase this document from the Government           Printing Office***IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT******
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUIS LOPEZ ARRIAGA,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1293 LKK DAD P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner’s counsel has requested leave to file a traverse out of time. 

Respondents do not object to the request. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s May 13, 2005 request for permission to file a late traverse is

granted; and

2. The traverse filed May 13, 2005, is deemed timely.

DATED: May 17, 2005.

DAD:13:bb

arri1293.111tr3

Case 2:04-cv-01293-LKK -DAD Document 17 Filed 05/18/05 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-53385) pertaining to the Corus Bankshares, Inc. Commission Program
for Commercial Loan Officers, of our report dated January 16, 2004, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Corus Bankshares, Inc. incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-77481) pertaining to the Corus Bankshares, Inc. 1999 Stock
Option Plan, of our report dated January 16, 2004, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Corus Bankshares, Inc. incorporated by
reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2003.


                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 11, 2004
No. 65480.

#### World Wide Sports, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/20903 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

An examination of the protest disclosing that it was untimely filed under section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1514), the protest was dismissed.
II 

Calendar No. 417 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4235 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to 

reauthorize grants to support for law enforcement officers and families, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 1, 2024 

Mr. HAWLEY (for himself, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. OSSOFF, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mr. COONS, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. PADILLA, Mr. WELCH, Ms. BUTLER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, 

Mr. CORNYN, Mr. CRUZ, Mr. COTTON, Mr. TILLIS, and Mrs. BLACKBURN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JUNE 5, 2024 

Reported by Mr. DURBIN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 

Act of 1968 to reauthorize grants to support for law 

enforcement officers and families, 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, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4235 RS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reauthorizing Support 

3 and Treatment for Officers in Crisis Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION. 

5 Section 1001(a)(21) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

6 Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 

7 10261(a)(21)) is amended by striking ‘‘2020 through 

8 2024’’ and inserting ‘‘2025 through 2029’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 417 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4235 

A BILL 

To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 

and for other purposes. port for law enforcement officers and families, Streets Act of 1968 to reauthorize grants to supJUNE 5, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) Meeting with EPA on October 14, 2015

List of Attendees

No. Name Affiliation Email 

1. Mark de Figueiredo EPA defigueiredo.mark@epa.gov

2. Jameel Alsalam EPA alsalam.jameel@epa.gov

3. Vickie Patton EDF vpatton@edf.org

4. Peter Zalzal EDF pzalzal@edf.org

5. Tomas Carbonell EDF tcarbonell@edf.org

6. Sarah Dunham EPA dunham.sarah@epa.gov

7. Bruce Moore EPA moore.bruce@epa.gov

8. Alex McPherson EPA mcpherson.alex@epa.gov

9. Pamela Franklin EPA franklin.pamela@epa.gov

10. Lisa Thompson EPA thompson.lisa@epa.gov
January
      23, 2002




Receivables
      Capital Corporation


c/o
      AMACAR


6525
      Morrison Boulevard,


Suite
      318


Charlotte,
      NC 28211






Bank
      of
      America,National
      Association


Global
      Asset-Backed Securitization


231
      South
      LaSalle St.


Chicago,
      IL 60697




Please
      be
      advised that per Section 2.04 of the Certificate Purchase Agreement, among
      Navistar Financial Securities Corporation, as Seller; Navistar Financial
      Corporation as Servicer; Receivables Capital Corporation, as the Conduit
      Purchaser; Bank of America, National Association, as Administrative Agent and
      Bank of America, National Association, as Committed Purchaser, datedJanuary 28, 2000,
      the
      Seller and the Servicer hereby request an extension of the Purchase Expiration
      Date until January 22, 2003.




Additionally,the
      Seller and Servicer
      herebyrequest
      perSection 2.05 of
      the CertificatePurchase Agreement,
      that the Maximum Funded Amount for the Navistar Financial Dealer Note Master
      Trust Series 2000-VFC be permanently reduced to $25,000,000.00, effective as
      of
      the date of this letter.




Your
      signature hereto shall constitute an agreement in writing among the parties
      to
      the Certificate Purchase Agreement effective, under the terms of Section 2.04
      of
      the Certificate Purchase Agreement, to extend the Purchase Expiration Date
      until
      January 22, 2003 and under the terms of Section 2.05 of the Certificate Purchase
      Agreement, to reduce the Maximum Funded Amount of the Navistar Financial Dealer
      Note Master Trust Series 2000-VFC to $25,000,000.




(Signatures
      Continued on the Next Page]






E-35




Sincerely,




NAVISTAR
      FINANCIAL SECURITIES CORPORATION,


As
      Seller




By:  /s/  R.
      W.
      CAIN


Name:   R.
      Wayne Cain


Title:     Senior
      Vice President Finance






NAVISTAR
      FINANCIAL CORPORATION,


as
      Servicer




By:  /s/  R.W.
      CAIN


Name:   R.
      Wayne Cain


Title:     Senior
      Vice President Finance











Consented
      and Agreed:




RECEIVABLES
      CAPITAL CORPORATION,


As
      the
      Conduit Purchaser




By:     
      /s/  EVELYN
      ECHEVARRIA


Name:        Evelyn
      Echevarria


Title:          Vice
      President






BANK
      OF
      AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,


As
      Committed Purchaser and as Administrative Agent




By:     
      /s/  MARIANNE
      MIHALIK


Name:        Marianne
      Mihalik


Title:         
      Principal






E-36
-1-

Case No. 

04-1005 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REQUEST TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT A OF THE REPLY DECLARATION OF PETER J. 

MINEGAR IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

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 

27 

28 

S H

A

R T S I S F

R I E S E L L P

ONE MARITIME PLAZA

EIGHTEENTH FLOOR

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111-3598

SHARTSIS FRIESE LLP

FRANK A. CIALONE (Bar #172816) 

ERICK C. HOWARD (Bar #214107) 

One Maritime Plaza, 18th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94111-3598 

Telephone: (415) 421-6500 

Facsimile: (415) 421-2922 

Attorneys for Defendants 

MINEGAR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 

INC., AND PETER J. MINEGAR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CONCRETE WASHOUT SYSTEMS, INC., a 

California corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MINEGAR ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, 

INC., a California corporation, PETER J. 

MINEGAR, and DOES 1 - 10, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. CIV.S-04-1005 

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: REQUEST TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBIT A OF THE 

REPLY DECLARATION OF PETER J. 

MINEGAR IN SUPPORT OF 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Date: July 11, 2005 

Time: 1:30 p.m. 

Courtroom: 5 

District Judge: Hon. William B. Shubb 

The Court considered the Request to File Under Seal Exhibit A of the Reply Declaration of 

Peter J. Minegar in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. For good cause 

appearing: 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Request is GRANTED. The Exhibit A of the Reply 

Declaration of Peter J. Minegar shall be filed under seal. 

DATED: July 5, 2005 

NAB\6773\001\1312592.01 

Case 2:04-cv-01005-WBS-DAD Document 98 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 1
Thirteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.4 
 THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This Thirteenth Amendment to Employment Agreement is
made and entered into as of March 1, 2008, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation (“Employer”) and Thomas Martin (“Executive”). 
 Recitals 
  

	A)	On March 31, 1998 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	B)	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twelve prior occasions; 

  

	C)	Employer and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow: 

 Agreement 
  

	1.	Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement, which provides: 

 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2008 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the “Employment
Term”). 
 is hereby amended, effective as of March 1, 2008, to provide as follows: 
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on April 1, 1998 and shall continue until March 31, 2009
unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided (the “Employment Term”). 








	2.	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective. 

 Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above. 
  

							
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EMPLOYER
			
		 		 	PRICESMART, INC.
				
	Thomas Martin	 		 	By:	 	 /S/ JOSE LUIS LAPARTE

	 /S/ THOMAS MARTIN
	 		 	Name:	 	Jose Luis Laparte
		 		 	Its:	 	President