alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 7 , 2024

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00238

- CV

LAWRENCE EDWARD THOMPSON , Appellant

V.
UNKNOWN HARRIS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTY/JAILER , Appellee

On Appeal from the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No

. 2

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1195687

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an attempted appe al from an order dismissing the underlying case for want of prosecution signed December 4, 202 3 . On January 10, 2024, appellant filed an untimely and unverified motion to reinstate the appeal. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3) (providing that a motion to reinstate must be verified and filed within 30 days after the order of dismissal is signed). Because the motion was not timely filed, the appellate deadlines were not extended. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(3) (extending deadline for filing notice of appeal to 90 days when a timely motion to2

reinstate has been filed). Accordingly, appellant’s notice of appeal was due January 3, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1

. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on February 26, 2024.
Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed timely. A motion to extend time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, but within
the 15

- day grace period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion to extend time. See Verburgt v. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617

– 18 (1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). Appellant ’ s notice of appeal was not filed within the 15

- day period provided by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3

. On April 10, 2024 , notification was transmitted to all parties the appeal was subject to dismissal without further notice for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant filed no response.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
The DJI Phantom 2 Vision + User Manual exceeds the 10.5 Megbyte limit , but is available here: http://download.dji innovations.com/downloads/phantom_2_vision_plus/en/Phantom_2_Vision_Plus_User_Manual_v1.8_en.pdf
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1336

MENGYANG LI , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
SHEPHERD UNIVERSITY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. Gina M. Groh , District Judge. ( 3:19

- cv - 00216

- GMG

- RWT )

Submitted : July 25, 2023 Decided: July 28, 2023

Before WYNN and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Mengyang Li , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Mengyang Li seeks to appea l the district court’s orde rs denying his motion to postpone the submission deadline of a joint proposed schedule in his civil action and entering an amended schedule

. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and colla teral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541, 545

- 46 (1949). The
order s Li seeks to appeal are neither final order s nor appealable interlocutory or collateral
order s . Accordingly, we dismiss t he appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1336 Doc: 15 Filed: 07/28/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: Project No.: 0172.09.005.424 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: 304m 2012 Annual Review 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECORD Incoming Outgoing Date: 09/24/12 Time: 4:30 am

pm

Company Name: California EPA ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Bartell

Contact Name: Phillip Isorena Contact Phone Number: (916) 341-5544

General Subject: Tosco Corporation Petroleum Refinery 2010 Dioxin Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On September 24, 2012 at 4:30pm I called Phillip Isorena of the California EPA Perm itting Section and left a

message.

On September 24, 2012 at 5:20pm Renan Jauregui returned my call (916-341-5505). I told him that I needed to confirm the following dioxin discharges from the Tosco Corporation, Amorco Wharf (CA0004961) in Martinez, CA:

All discharges from Outfall 001, September 2010 OCDF: 101,000,000 pg/L (0.101 mg/L = 101 ug/L); Pram = 51025 OCDD: 1,600; 3,100 pg/L; Pram = 03818

He looked up the facility and said that the facility did not start submitting electr onic data until 2011 and therefore he has to track down the hard copy files to c onfirm the data. He stated that he would track down the data and get back to me as soon as he can.

On September 26 at 4:30pm Renan called me and stated that there was a data entry error. He said that the data was entered as micrograms per liter but reported as picograms per liter. Correct data is below.

Pram 51025 (OCDF): 0.000101 ug/L = 101 pg/L Pram 03818 (OCDD): 0.00317 ug/L = 3170 pg/L
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 13.(a).1

                            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 Partner Communications Company
Ltd (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2003, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:

                  1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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.

Date: April 30, 2004             /s/    AMIKAM COHEN
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Name:  Amikam Cohen
                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 30, 2004             /s/    ALAN GELMAN
                                 ------------------------------
                                 Name:  Alan Gelman
                                 Title: Chief Financial Officer
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

LYNN HUBBARD, III, SBN 69773

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD IV, SBN 212970

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

12 WILLIAMSBURG LANE

CHICO, CA 95926

Telephone: (530) 895-3252

Fax: (530) 894-8244

Attorneys for Plaintiff

MICHAEL BRUNO, SBN 166805

GORDON & REES

275 Battery Street, Suite 2000

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 986-5900

Facsimile: (415) 986-8054

Attorneys for Defendant

Trav Cor & Investment, Inc. 

dba Best Western Trail Side Inn

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARY FEEZOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TRAV COR & INVESTMENT, INC. dba

BEST WESTERN TRAIL SIDE INN; and

DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

 /

Case No. CIV. S 04-2197 MCE (CMK)

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL AND

ORDER THEREON 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-02197-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 09/06/05 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

27

28

- 2 -

TO THE COURT AND ALL PARTIES:

Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement and Release between plaintiff, Lary Feezor,

and defendant, Trav Cor & Investment, Inc. dba Best Western Trail Side Inn, the parties

hereby request that all parties be dismissed with prejudice from the above-entitled action.

Dated: August 31, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD, III

/s/ Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV

SCOTTLYNN J HUBBARD, IV 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: August 31, 2005 GORDON & REES

Signature On File

MICHAEL BRUNO, ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant Trav Cor & Investment,

Inc. dba Best Western Trail Side Inn

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaint of plaintiff, USDC Case No. CIV.S-04-

2197 MCE (CMK), is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: September 6, 2005

___________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-02197-MCE -CMK Document 10 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2
consumer

markets work for America’s 

consumers

About the CFPB

The CFPB is focused on making 

work for families by empowering 

consumers to take more control 

working to foster a marketplace:

• Where customers can see 

 prices and risks up front and 

 where they can easily make 

 product comparisons

• In which no one can build a 

 business model around unfair, 

 deceptive, or abusive practices

• That works for American 

 consumers, responsible 

 providers, and the economy as 

 a whole

O ce for Older Americans

Get help now

• Submit a complaint

• Find a HUD-approved housing

 counselor

 products

consumer

complaint line

(855) 411-CFPB (2372)

TTY/TDD 

(855) 729-CFPB (2372)

info@consumer

(202) 435-7000

Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau

1700 G Street NW

Washington DC 20552

Join our social networks

facebook.com/cfpb

twitter.com/cfpb

@
You may face:

• Clever con artists or even family members 

 targeting you because of your home equity 

 or net worth

• A choice between paying the mortgage/

 rent or your credit card bill

• Complicated decisions about finances, 

 retirement, and long-term planning

We will:

• Give you the tools you need to make 

 educated financial choices

• Protect against false and deceptive 

 designations of financial counselors

• Coordinate efforts to help seniors across a 

 wide spectrum of groups

• Gather research and information about 

 trends and harmful practices to help 

 policymakers and the financial services 

 industry address older Americans’ needs

The Office for Older Americans is a special 

office within the Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau (CFPB) dedicated to 

helping Americans 62 and older make sound 

financial decisions. We know that in many 

cases, that means giving those who are 

providing care for older Americans the tools 

and information they need, when they need 

them. 

We partner with others in the CFPB who 

research, write and enforce consumer financial 

regulations to address the unique financial 

challenges facing older Americans.

We are here to empower seniors to ask 

questions and to give older Americans the 

information they need to make informed 

choices about their money.

We help older Americans to speak up and 

speak out about the financial challenges of 

aging. We provide information to help older 

Americans hold on to assets, avoid financial 

abuse, and learn more about long-term 

planning for retirement.

Financial protection 

for older Americans

Older Americans face many challenges 

when managing their money. They want to 

keep their homes, but expenses continue to 

rise as retirement income remains the same. 

They watch their savings shrink, sometimes 

due to bad advice or even fraud. The Office 

for Older Americans is here to give seniors 

and their families information and tools 

to navigate safely through the financial 

challenges of aging.

Hubert “Skip” 

Humphrey III

Head of the CFPB’s 

Office for Older 

Americans

Skip has spent much of his professional life working 

to protect consumers, serving first as a state Senator 

and later as Attorney General of Minnesota.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v LEE E. COOK, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

18 USCMA 159, 39 CMR 159

No. 21,776

March 7, 1969

*160
      *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Major James M. Yelton, Jr.,*and *Captain Robert A. Savill*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Colonel David Rarich, Major William A. Pope, II,*and *Captain Robert M. Steinbach*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

PER Curiam:

Appellant, who was not yet twenty years of age at the time of trial, was found guilty of a number of offenses involving disobedience of, and disrespect to, commissioned and noncom-missioned officers and assault. All the offenses were committed at the Red Fox Enlisted Men’s Club in Warner Barracks, Bamberg, Germany, while the accused was “pretty intoxicated.” He had no previous civilian or military convictions and had never received administrative punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 815. Through his counsel, he informed the court-martial that he was “ ‘very sorry . . . [he] lost . . . [his] head’ ” and “ ‘ meant no harm.’ ” In arguing on the sentence, defense counsel called attention to the accused’s “unblemished” record during two years of service. He also reviewed the circumstances under which the offenses were committed and indicated that at least three of the more serious delicts would not have occurred had a young officer exercised the same discretion and judgment exhibited by a more experienced officer on the scene. See United States v Cave, 17 USCMA 153, 37 CMR 417. Yet, he concluded his argument as follows: “I won’t argue, if you gentlemen feel he is not fit for the service, but what I am saying, [is that] a lengthy period of confinement will serve no useful purpose.”

In our opinion, defense counsel’s remark was tantamount to a concession that a punitive discharge was an appropriate punishment. It was, therefore, directly contrary to the import of the accused’s statement and mitigating evidence. While the maximum sentence for all the offenses was substantial, the court-martial could reasonably have concluded that the incident was “ ‘just one long transaction’ ” which did not warrant the enduring stigma of a punitive discharge. United States v Cave, supra, at page 156. We conclude, therefore, that counsel’s concession deprived the accused of effective assistance of counsel in regard to the sentence. United States v Garcia, 18 USCMA 75, 39 CMR 75; United States v Mitchell, 16 USCMA 302, 36 CMR 458.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the board of review. In its discretion, the board of review may assess another sentence which does not include a punitive discharge or direct a rehearing of the sentence before a court-martial.
# Discussion Draft: Base Case Shipments Jim McMahon JEMcMahon@lbl.gov 

### Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory To DOE Workshop, Washington, D.C. July23, 1997 

## .,^~~ . ," -' ' ^ ! 

## ' ^

# Possible approaches
· Extrapolate historicaltrend
- annual shipments by year 

### Dependence on keydrivers - replacement (lifetime, historical shipments) - new housing construction 

### Economic models (include elasticityto:)
- appliance prices - energy prices - water and sewage prices 

### Other EnergyAnalysis Program

# Extrapolate historicaltrend Zmj L. 

### * U.S. shipments ofwashers
- exclude compacts

-exclude exports 

### · Lineartrend vs time
- 10 years (1987-1996) 

### - 20 years (1977-1996) - 30 years (1967-1996) - 40 years (1957-1996) · 

### Project trend to year2030 Energy Analysis Program

## Dependence on key drivers * Replacement
- Historical shipments - Average life 14 years (range: 10-18) 

### * New housing construction - Bureau of Census housing starts * singlefamily * multifamily * mobile homes - Percent ofconsumers 

### * Not accounted for:
- additions (by previous non-owners inexisting houses) - economic factors (price, energy and water costs) EnergyAnalysis ProgramShipments ofClothes Washers (excluding compacts and exports) 10

9 - History Projected _-" j" 9 U

_ - 7 m- . ; .. *** * " t i_---- regress20years 3- Historiregress 40years i al a ' ...--.- regress 30 years 3 - 2- I , regress 30years I ·a .1 -

· . . , | , ' ' ' |* - ' ' | | | | | * | ' X' i*| W Is | | | | e e s X l l I............. regress 10 yea rs 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015. 2020 2025 2030 /~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~22 2030 '
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

**ELMER DAVENPORT,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 33 EM 2015** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 29th day of May, 2015, the Application for Le ave to File Original** 

**Process is** GRANTED **, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus and/or Extr aordinary** 

**Relief is** DENIED

**.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEET & INCOME STATEMENT AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                  38,837
<SECURITIES>                                         0                  30,242
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                  94,773
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                 171,834
<PP&E>                                               0                  31,746
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                  21,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0                 235,214
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                  35,418
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                   3,316
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                 193,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0                 235,214
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,354                 467,090
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  115,221                 423,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   300                     741
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 110                     449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,543                  44,332
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,508                  18,974
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,035                  25,358
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21                     .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .21                     .76
        

</TABLE>
Order entered January 28, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00144-CR

TENEKA KASHUN ALEXANDER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-21009-Y

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 13, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. On January 27, 2014, we received appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Accordingly, we VACATE the January 13, 

2014 order requiring findings. We will dispose of the motion to dismiss in due course.

/s/ DAVID EVANS 

JUSTICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

LESTER BALDWIN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 442 MAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 13th day of February, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C_2007047EN.01000901.xml

| 1.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 47/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/9

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Amendment of public service obligations imposed on certain scheduled air services in Spain

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 47/10)

Pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992, the Spanish Government has decided to amend the public service obligations imposed on scheduled air services in the Canary Islands published in OJ C 321 of 29 December 2006.

The reference single fare for each of the routes will be as follows:

| a) | Gran Canaria — Tenerife North: 54 euros |
| --- | --- |

a)

Gran Canaria — Tenerife North: 54 euros

| b) | Gran Canaria — Tenerife South: 54 euros |
| --- | --- |

b)

Gran Canaria — Tenerife South: 54 euros

| c) | Gran Canaria — Fuerteventura: 62 euros |
| --- | --- |

c)

Gran Canaria — Fuerteventura: 62 euros

| d) | Gran Canaria — El Hierro: 91 euros |
| --- | --- |

d)

Gran Canaria — El Hierro: 91 euros

| e) | Gran Canaria — Lanzarote: 69 euros |
| --- | --- |

e)

Gran Canaria — Lanzarote: 69 euros

| f) | Gran Canaria — La Palma: 85 euros |
| --- | --- |

f)

Gran Canaria — La Palma: 85 euros

| g) | Tenerife North — Fuerteventura: 86 euros |
| --- | --- |

g)

Tenerife North — Fuerteventura: 86 euros

| h) | Tenerife North — El Hierro: 62 euros |
| --- | --- |

h)

Tenerife North — El Hierro: 62 euros

| i) | Tenerife North — Lanzarote: 91 euros |
| --- | --- |

i)

Tenerife North — Lanzarote: 91 euros

| j) | Tenerife North — La Palma: 57 euros |
| --- | --- |

j)

Tenerife North — La Palma: 57 euros

| k) | La Palma — Lanzarote: 91 euros |
| --- | --- |

k)

La Palma — Lanzarote: 91 euros

| l) | Gran Canaria — La Gomera: 85 euros |
| --- | --- |

l)

Gran Canaria — La Gomera: 85 euros

| m) | Tenerife North — La Gomera: 62 euros |
| --- | --- |

m)

Tenerife North — La Gomera: 62 euros

The other requirements of the public service obligations published in OJ C 255 of 21 October 2006 remain unchanged.

---