alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case No. 13,782.

#### TAYLOR et al. v. BUCKNER.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 540.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

May Term, 1835.

Slavery — Illegal Bringing into State — Suit for Freedom — Reversioner’s Interest.

1. An importation of slaves by a person who has only a life estate in them is an importation within the Maryland act of 1796, c. 67, § 1 [1 Dor. Md. Laws, 179G, p. 334], and the consent of the reversioner to the importation is not necessary to give freedom to the slaves thus imported.

2. The question of the intent with which the importation is made is for the jury.

Petition for freedom by Negro Charles Taylor, and others; six cases; removed from Washington to Alexandria county for a fair trial.

The petitioners claim freedom by reason of their importation from Virginia into the county of Washington “to reside," contrary to the Maryland act of 1796, c. 67, § 1.

Mr. Taylor, for the defendant

[Ariss Buckner], having offered evidence that some of the petitioners, namely, Fanny and her children, were the property of the defendant for the life of his wife only, prayed the court to instruct the jury, that the importation of those petitioners by the defendant could not give them any right to freedom under the first section of the Maryland act of 1796, c. 67, and cited Negro Sally v. Ball, 1 Wheat. [14 U. S.] 1, and the Virginia law of 1819, §§ 48, 49 (2 Rev. Cbde, 431).

But THE COURT (MORSELL, Circuit Judge, not having heard the argument, gave no opinion) refused to give the instruction.

Mr. Taylor then prayed the court to instruct the jury that such importation, without the consent of the reversioners, could not give those petitioners a right to freedom under the first section of the Maryland act of 1796, e. 67, which THE COURT still refused to give, notwithstanding the case of Negro Sally v. Ball, 1 Wheat. [14 U. S.] 5, considering the words, “since it is the property of the person importing the slave which is forfeited,” as dictum only; that point not being necessary to the decision of that cause, the slave in that case not having been brought in to reside or for sale, but only for a year’s service, and having been, in the course of the year, carried back to Virginia.

Mr. Key, for petitioners,

contended- that the hiring out in Washington of the slave of a non-resident, for more than a year, is evidence that the bringing in was “to reside," contrary to the first section; .and that it-had been so decided by this court.

Mr. Jones denied it; and appealed to the court.

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) said that they did not recollect any such decision; but that the question was always left open to the jury, as to the intent with which the importation was made.
FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

301 Fannin, Room 245

Houston, Texas 77002

To: Chris Daniel June 12, 2015

County: Harris (Criminal)

Subject: RETURN OF ORIGINAL EXHIBITS

Please acknowledge the receipt of the original exhibits listed below. Please sign and return 

the original to this court.

14-14-00828-CR DeSergio Geterus Parrish v The State of Texas 1421465

State’s Exhibit 5, a DVD

State’s Exhibit 15, a CD

State’s Exhibit 15A, a CD

State’s Exhibit 22, a CD

Received by: ________________________________________

Received on: ________________________________________
OFFICE OF PUBLIC UTILITY COUNSEL

PUBLIC COUNSEL, TONYA BAER

 POST OFFICE BOX 12397  TEL: 512.936.7500 

 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711  WEB: WWW.OPUC.TEXAS.GOV

August 20, 2015 

VIA E-FILE 

The Honorable Jeffrey D. Kyle 

Clerk, Court of Appeals 

209 W. 14th St., Room 101 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: Appeals Docket No. 03-14-00735-CV; Trial Court Case No. D-1-GN-13-000121; 

Appellant, Entergy Texas, Inc.// Cross-Appellants, the Office of Public Utility 

Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Appellee, Public Utility 

Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Cross-Appellees, 

the Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc. 

Dear Mr. Kyle: 

 This letter responds to your letter of August 17, 2015 concerning resetting the date for 

oral argument in this case for September 23, 2015, at 1:30 p.m. I will appear and argue for the 

Office of Public Utility Counsel. 

Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ Sara J. Ferris 

 Sara J. Ferris 

 Senior Assistant Public Counsel 

 State Bar No. 50511915 

 Office of Public Utility Counsel 

 1701 N. Congress Avenue, Suite 9-180 

 Austin, Texas 78701 

 sara.ferris@opuc.texas.gov

ACCEPTED

03-14-00735-CV

6579635

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

8/20/2015 11:40:49 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/20/2015 11:40:49 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
August 20, 2015 

Page 2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, I certify that on the 20th day of 

August, 2015, the Office of Public Utility Counsel’s letter regarding resetting the oral argument 

date was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic case filing system of 

the Court, and that a true and correct copy was served on the following lead counsel for all 

parties listed below via electronic service: 

Counsel for Entergy Texas, Inc. Marnie A. McCormick 

Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP 

600 Congress Ave., Ste. 1900 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Counsel for the Public Utility Commission Elizabeth R. B. Sterling 

of Texas Environmental Protection Division 

Office of the Attorney General 

P.O. Box 12548 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Counsel for Texas Industrial Energy Consumers Rex. D. VanMiddlesworth 

Thompson & Knight, LLP 

98 San Jacinto Blvd, Ste. 1900 

Austin, Texas 78701 

 /s/ Sara J. Ferris 

 Sara J. Ferris
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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Keith M. Cassells,

Plaintiff, No. Civ. S 04-1798 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

D. Mehta, et al.,

Defendants.

-oOoNovember 3, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for production

of documents.

Interrogatories, requests for production, requests for

admission, responses and proofs of service thereof “shall not be

filed with the clerk until there is a proceeding in which the

document or proof of service is at issue. When required in a

proceeding, only that part of the request and response that is in 

issue shall be filed.” Local Rules 33-250(c), 34-250(c) & 36-

250(c).

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 40 Filed 11/18/05 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, the court will take no action on plaintiff’s

November 3, 2005, request for production of documents. 

So ordered.

Dated: November 17, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01798-FCD-EFB Document 40 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10282

Conference Calendar

GERALD DEMARSH

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CHARLES KUNKLE; PATRICK STARR; KATHLEEN MIRACLE; JASON

CHRISTMAN

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CV-2006

Before KING, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Gerald DeMarsh appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as

frivolous and/or barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). DeMarsh

filed a motion to expedite this appeal. He argues that the magistrate judge and

the district court acted improperly and that he has a rightto self-representation.

Although we liberally construe pro se briefs, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S.

519, 520 (1972), even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10282

2

them. See Yohey v.Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). By failing to

discuss the district court’s rationale for dismissing his complaint, DeMarsh has

abandoned the issue, and it is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment.

See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th

Cir. 1987). This appeal is without merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The

motion to expedite the appeal is denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-12-00482-CV

_________________

GREGORY C. LENTZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF HMG 

SERVICES, L.L.C., AND/OR DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF LIGHTHOUSE 

HOSPICE PARTNERS, LLC, A TEXAS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY,

Appellant

V.

LIGHTHOUSE HOSPICE MANAGEMENT, LLC AND HARDEN HC TEXAS 

HOLDCO, LLC, Appellees

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-05-05207 CV

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Gregory C. Lentz, individually and as assignee of HMG Services, 

L.L.C., and/or derivatively on behalf of Lighthouse Hospice Partners, LLC, a Texas 

limited liability company, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal with prejudice. The 

motion is voluntarily made by the appellant prior to any decision of this Court. See Tex. 
2

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No other party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and 

dismiss the appeal. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 

________________________________

 HOLLIS HORTON

 Justice

Opinion Delivered November 15, 2012

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
Exhibit
32.2





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 Annual Report of Sunway Global Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Samuel Sheng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.





Date:
      January 15, 2010
            By:
            /s/
      Samuel ShengSamuel
      Sheng
              Chief
      Financial Officer
              (principal
      financial and accounting officer)
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Homeland Security Bureau of Customs and Border Protection
 AGENCY: Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
 ACTION: General Notice.
 SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 11 1.51), the following Customs broker permits are cancelled without prejudice. Name
Permit No.
Issuing PortHYC Logistics, Inc.
28-05-E69
San Francisco.Braverman Enterprises, Inc.
200113
Los Angeles.Martin, Kassatly & Company
13056-P
San Francisco.Cornerstone Logistics, Inc.
17392-P
San Francisco.Alfredo Mesa
52-04-B IC
Miami.BLG, Inc.
081
New York.Gallagher Transport International, Inc.
0158
St. Louis.Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
3501-01-0063
Minneapolis.Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
5398-001
Houston.Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
26-01-006
Nogales.Exel Global Logistics, Inc.
4979-P
San Francisco.David II Kim Dba ACE American Express
94014
Los Angeles.Charter Brokerage Corp.
53-03-U14
Houston.( print page 10237)William L. Crain
39-04-BGS
Chicago.
 Dated: February 26, 2007. Daniel Baldwin, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade.


[FR Doc. E7-4006 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
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

DEMETRIUS HENDERSON, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2416 LKK PAN P

vs.

D. L. RUNNELS, et al., 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this 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 June 8, 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. Petitioner 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-02416-LKK -PAN Document 17 Filed 07/22/05 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

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 8, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed. 

DATED: July 22, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/hend2416.805.hc

Case 2:04-cv-02416-LKK -PAN Document 17 Filed 07/22/05 Page 2 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY JOHN FARRIS III,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-01758-GEB-KJM-P

vs.

GEORGE STRATTON, Acting Warden,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prison inmate proceeding with

counsel, has filed this 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 August 15, 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. 

Case 2:04-cv-01758-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 09/20/05 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

Petitioner 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.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15,

2005, are adopted in full; and

2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

is dismissed without prejudice and petitioner is given the option

of filing an amended petition containing only exhausted claims

within thirty days of the date on which this Order is filed.

Dated: September 19, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01758-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Robert B. Proper, Respondent, and Sterling Insurance Company, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 641]

—Peters, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kahn, J.), entered December 21, 1994 in Albany County, which granted petitioner’s application pursuant to CPLR 7510 to confirm an arbitration award.

On January 21, 1991, petitioner, a longstanding employee of respondent, entered into an employment agreement with respondent that was to continue until May 5, 1995. The agreement provided for a yearly salary and stated that petitioner would be entitled to participate in and be entitled to all employee benefits including the "Supplemental Defined Benefit Plan Agreement” (hereinafter Supplemental Pension Plan). Thereafter, by letter dated October 18, 1993, respondent purported to rescind both the employment agreement and petitioner’s Supplemental Pension Plan. Alleging wrongful termination, petitioner demanded arbitration in accordance with the parties’ agreement seeking ’e[reinstatement of the Agreement, salary and benefits other than ERISA Pension Benefits”. Respondent cross-demanded rescission of the agreement but the arbitrator ultimately issued an award in petitioner’s favor. Petitioner commenced this proceeding requesting Supreme Court to confirm the award and direct respondent to pay his salary and benefits in accordance with the *752agreement. Supreme Court granted this relief and respondent now appeals.

Respondent asserts that the arbitrator did not award petitioner any rights to the Supplemental Pension Plan and Supreme Court exceeded its authority *(see, Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn. [State of New York],*124 AD2d 435) *by*directing respondent to provide petitioner with continued participation and accrual of this benefit. We disagree. Contrary to respondent’s arguments, the record supports petitioner’s contention that the Supplemental Pension Plan mentioned in the parties’ agreement was a non-ERISA benefit of his employment that was before the arbitrator. Respondent had the opportunity to contest petitioner’s right to Supplemental Pension Plan benefits in the arbitration proceeding and, significantly, did not seek to stay arbitration with respect to this benefit *(see, Matter of Thompson [S.L.T. Ready-Mix],*216 AD2d 656, 657).

We reject respondent’s remaining claims as further attempts to relitigate issues finally determined in arbitration. Since respondent has not alleged or established by competent proof any ground for modification or vacatur of the award, we hold Supreme Court’s confirmation of that award to be proper and within its authority.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Mercure and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4593 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4593

To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize removal of a civil 
  action or criminal prosecution against a President, Vice President, 
              former President, or former Vice President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2024

Mr. Tillis (for himself, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hawley, Mr. Schmitt, Mr. Budd, 
 and Mr. Lee) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 28, United States Code, to authorize removal of a civil 
  action or criminal prosecution against a President, Vice President, 
              former President, or former Vice President.

    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 ``No More Political Prosecutions Act 
of 2024''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CERTAIN ACTIONS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1442(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by striking the semicolon and 
        inserting a period; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(5) The President or Vice President, or a former 
        President or Vice President.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to civil actions and criminal prosecutions pending on or commenced on 
or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Devorius Jones v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00487

- CR

Trial court case number: 1454417

Trial court: 263rd District Court of Harris County

Appellant was represented by appointed counsel in the trial court, but counsel withdrew

when appellant filed his notice of appeal. No counsel was appointed on appeal and the record

does not show that the trial court made a determination of indigence for th e purpose of

appointing counsel or allowing appellant to have the record filed at no cost to him.

The reporter’s record was due August 1, 2016. The court reporter advised us that

appellant had not paid or made payment arrangements for filing the reporter’s record.

Accordingly, we issued an order, abating the appeal and directing the trial court to hold a

hearing to determine whether appellant was indigent and entitled to appointed counsel and a

record at no cost. The supplemental clerk’s record was filed on January 11, 2017. The trial court

found appellant was indigent and appointed Adam Brown as appellant’s counsel.

We lift the abatement and reinstate the appeal. The reporter’s record shall be filed on or before February 21, 2017

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually

Date: J anuary 19, 2017
No. 44005.

#### Protest 935114-G of O. E. Barrant (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

On the evidence presented the protest was overruled.
No. 64164.

protest 59/24843 (New York).

#### Wood, Niebuhr & Co. *v.*United States,

*465Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.