alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

July 24, 2014

No. 04

- 14

- 00502

- CV

IN RE STALLION OILFIELD SERVICES, LTD.

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

On July 21, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b). The respondent and the re al party in interest may

file a response to the petition in this court no later than August 7, 2014

. Any such response

must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

It is so ORDERED on July 24 th , 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13

- 11

- 52737

- CV, styled Jose Perez v. Stallion Oilfield Services Ltd. and

Stallion Oilfield Services in its Common or Assumed Name , pending in the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells

County, Texas, the Honorable Richard C. Terrell presiding.
No. 57309.

protests 902111-G, etc. (New York).

#### F. W. Stock & Sons v. United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

When this case was called for trial, it was submitted on the same basis as the submission in Abstract 57282, namely, that the right to move to reopen or to set aside the submission was abandoned. An examination of the record failing to disclose evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification, the protest was overruled. *(T. M. Duche & Sons*v. *United States,*39 C. C. P. A. 186, C. A. D. 485, certiorari denied, *T. M. Duche & Sons, Inc.*v. *United States,*344 U. S. 830, followed.)
- 1 - 

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 

LOMBARDI, LOPER

& CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza 

1999 Harrison Street 

Suite 2600 

Oakland, CA 94612-3541

TEL: 510/433-2600 

FAX: 510/433-2699 

B. CLYDE HUTCHINSON, 037526 

AN H. NGUYEN, 215453 

LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP 

Lake Merritt Plaza 

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 2600 

Oakland, CA 94612-3541 

TEL: (510) 433-2600 

FAX: (510) 433-2699 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—SACRAMENTO DIVISION 

LORIE ALMAZAN and ESTHER GALVEZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AZIZURANMAN RAHMANI, SAYED A. 

KARIMI, individually and dba ORANGE CAB 

CO.; ORANGE CAB CO.; NATIONAL 

RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION 

and DOES 1 to 20, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV S-04-1872 MCE PAN 

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY 

Defendant, NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION hereby requests the 

Court approve the substitution of Low, Ball & Lynch, 505 Montgomery St., 7th Floor, San 

Francisco, CA 94111-2584, Telephone (415) 981-6630 as attorney of record in place and instead of 

Lombardi, Loper & Conant. LLP. 

DATED: September 1, 2005 /s/ Leo Caniezo 

Leo Caniezo for National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:04-cv-01872-MCE -PAN Document 17 Filed 09/14/05 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

27 

28 

LOMBARDI, LOPER

& CONANT, LLP

Lake Merritt Plaza 

1999 Harrison Street 

Suite 2600 

Oakland, CA 94612-3541

TEL: 510/433-2600 

FAX: 510/433-2699 

I have given proper notice and further consent to the above substitution. 

DATED: September 1, 2005 LOMBARDI, LOPER & CONANT, LLP 

By: /s/ An H. Nguyen 

An H. Nguyen 

Attorneys for Defendant 

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER 

CORPORATION 

I am duly admitted to practice in this District and accept the substitution. 

DATED: September 5, 2005 LOW, BALL & LYNCH 

By: /s/ Dale Allen, Jr. 

Dale Allen, Jr. 

Attorneys for Defendants SAYED A. KARIMI, 

Orange Cab Co., and AZIZURANMAN 

RAHMANI. 

ORDER

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 14, 2005 

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-01872-MCE -PAN Document 17 Filed 09/14/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 63119.

#### C. T. Takahashi & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 58/8160 (San Francisco).

*402Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of wood charcoal briquettes similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Britton & Company*v. *United States*(41 Cust. Ct. 64, C.D. 2021), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
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

PATRICK RONALD HOLLEY, SR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1842 FCD JFM P

vs.

C.C.I. W. SINKOVICH, 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 October 12, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. On October

28, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary dismissal or, in the alternative, a statement of non-

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01842-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 11/22/05 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

1

 Plaintiff seeks dismissal of this action without prejudice in order to exhaust available

administrative remedies, and he specifically requests adoption of the findings and

recommendations in the alternative if granting his motion for voluntary dismissal will prejudice

his claims. Since plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing this action, the

action must be dismissed without prejudice. See McKinney v. Carey, 311 F.3d 1198, 1200-01

(9th Cir. 2002). The dismissal of this action without prejudice operates as a determination that

plaintiff’s claims have not been resolved on the merits herein. Nothing in this order should be

construed as a finding concerning the timeliness of plaintiff’s claims should he return to federal

court after exhausting said remedies.

2

opposition to the findings and recommendations.1 Plaintiff seeks dismissal of this action without

prejudice in order to exhaust available administrative remedies.

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 12, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Defendants’ April 11, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted; and

3. This action is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to

suit. 

DATED:November 22, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01842-FCD-JFM Document 23 Filed 11/22/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 52011.

#### Frederick Bondy & Co., Ltd., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 96863-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of knit fabric the same in all material respects as the fabric of which the gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) were made. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
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

THEODORE STITH,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1395 DFL KJM P

vs.

MICHAEL HARRISON,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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 July 27, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Petitioner has not filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01395-DFL -KJM Document 7 Filed 09/26/05 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

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 27, 2005, are adopted in full; and 

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b).

DATED: 9/22/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01395-DFL -KJM Document 7 Filed 09/26/05 Page 2 of 2
No. 61849.

#### Imperial International Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 261098-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

The protests were dismissed.
# C_2006317EN.01002301.xml

| 23.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/23

---

Corrigendum to State aid N. 622/05 — Slovakia

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 306 of 15 December 2006
  )

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 306 of 15 December 2006

(2006/C 317/11)

On page 13, in the second line, ‘Reference number of the aid’:

for:

for:

‘N 622/05’,

read:

read:

‘N 622/06’.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

t1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145379

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145379

COA: 309846

Grand Traverse CC: 06-010011-FH

DEAN WILLIAM JUNKER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
No. 57277.

protests 929743-G, etc. (New York).

#### M. Modlin & Son et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the kidskin plates are similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Kung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was- sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J., dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinion inC. D. 1480, *supra.*
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

ALONZO DEON JOHNSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-03-2063 FCD JFM P

vs.

CLAUDE E. FINN, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

DARRYL L. THOMPSON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2208 MCE PAN P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

Examination of the above-entitled actions reveals that these cases are related

within the meaning of Local Rule 83-123(a), E.D. Cal. (2005). The actions involve the same

criminal prosecution and the same questions of fact and law. Accordingly, assignment of the

matters to the same judge is likely to effect a substantial saving of judicial effort and is also likely

to be convenient for the parties.

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 9 Filed 09/19/05 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

The parties should be aware that relating the cases under Local Rule 83-123

merely has the result that the actions are assigned to the same judge; no consolidation of the

actions is effected. Under the regular practice of this court, related cases are generally assigned

to the judge and magistrate judge to whom the first filed action was assigned.

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the action denominated as Thompson v. Carey,

Case No. CIV S-04-2208 MCE PAN P is reassigned to the undersigned and to Magistrate Judge

John F. Moulds for all further proceedings. Henceforth, the caption on documents filed in the

reassigned case shall be shown as No. CIV S-04-2208 FCD JFM P. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court make appropriate

adjustment in the assignment of civil cases to compensate for this reassignment. 

DATED:September 16, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02208-JAM-JFM Document 9 Filed 09/19/05 Page 2 of 2
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 Broad Scope Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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.

December 15, 2003

/s/ Hon Kit Ng

Hon Kit Ng , President, Secretary, and Treasurer
(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
Case No. 8,444.

#### LOCKETT v. HOGE.

[The case reported under above title in 9 is. B. R. 107, is the same as Case No. 8,443.]
No. 55243.

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

protests 156024-K and 158022-K (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
| **Community Training** | Child Passenger Safety Courses 2003-2004**Enter** |
|------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Wilbert Stafford, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 1, 2013, after a jury trial, convicting him of driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Diana M. Boyar, J.), rendered July 1, 2013, affirmed. </p><p>Defendant's present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for resisting arrest (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง 205.30) is unpreserved for appellate review (<i>see People v Gray</i>, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The jury could rationally infer that defendant knew he was being arrested when two police officers told him not to move and attempted to handcuff him, and that defendant's flailing and physical struggle with the officers, resulting in all three falling down in the mud, were deliberate acts to resist arrest (see <a href="../2007/2007_09871.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Badia</i>, 46 AD3d 312</a> [2007], <i>lv denied </i>10 NY3d 761 [2008]; <i>People v Karim</i>, 176 AD2d 670 [1991], <i>lv denied </i>79 NY2d 859 [1992]; <i>People v Cvetkovski</i>, 49 Misc 3d 127[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 51379[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2015]). Nor was the conviction against the weight of the evidence (see <i>People v Bleakely</i>, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<p>Decision Date: March 29, 2017</p><br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
No. 52612.

protest 133091-K (New York).

#### U. S. Vitamin Corp *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of liver extract the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *United States*v. *Judson Sheldon Corp.*(33 C. C. P. A. 73, C. A. D. 318), the claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was sustained.
May 20, 2015

Mr. Simeon Fritz

912 Mount Pleasant Road Kingston Springs, TN 37082

Dear Mr. Simeon Fritz:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your March 25th, 2015 exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0762), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ZAKARIA TAOUFIK , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. ( 1:18

- cr - 00073

- CMH

- 1 )

Submitted : January 7, 2022 Decided: February 1, 2022

Before KING and RUSHING , Circuit Judges , and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Gregory B. English , ENGLISH LAW FIRM, PLLC , Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Raj Parekh, Acting United States Attorney, Grace L

. Hill , Assis tant United States Attorney, Jacqueline R

. Bechara , Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Alexandria, V irginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: After his sente nce was vacated on appeal, see United States v. Taoufik, 811 F. App’x 835 (4th Cir. 2020) (No. 19

- 4073), Zakaria Taoufik was resentenced to 33 months in prison and 3 years of supervised release. On appeal, Taoufik’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether Taoufik’s sentence of incarceration was procedurally and substantively reasonable. After filing his notice of appeal, Taoufik was released from prison, and his supervised release term was terminated by the district court due to Taoufik ’s deport ation . The parties agree that Taoufik’s appeal is now moot.

“ [O] nce the convict’s sentence has expired some concrete and continuing injury other than the now

- ended incarceration or parole

— some collateral consequence of the conviction

— must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” United States v. Hardy , 545 F.3d 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2008) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). Ta oufik, having completed his terms of imprisonment and supervised release, “bears the burden of demonstrating collateral consequences sufficient to meet Article III’s case

- or - controversy requirement.” Id. at 284 (internal quotation marks omitted). Taoufik ’s counsel has not attempted to meet this requirement and, in fact, agrees that the appeal is moot. Because Taoufik has already served his terms of imprisonment and supervised release, there is no longer a live controversy regarding the length of his conf inement or supervision . Therefore, the appeal of his sentence is moot , and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. DISMISSED