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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-24-00306-CR

IN RE Christopher-Jarvis PAYNE, Relator

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 12, 2024

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On May 2, 2024, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a)

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1

This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2021CR3349 and 2022CR6932, styled State of Texas v. Christopher-Jarvis 

Payne, pending in the Criminal District Court, Magistrate Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Andrew 

Carruthers presiding.
November 19 , 2013



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals RUSSELL EVANS AND TE RRIE EVANS , Appellant s NO. 14 - 12 - 01053 - CV V. CASEY DAVIS AND HAPP Y HIDE - A - WAY CIVIC CLUB, INC. , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee s , Casey Davis and Happy Hide - A - Way Civic Club, Inc., signed October 11, 2012, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred by granting summary judgment and awarding statutory fines and damages in fa vor of appellee Happy Hide - A - Way Civic Club, Inc. , and by dismissing appellants’ claims against Happy Hide - A - Way Civic Club, Inc . We therefore order these portions of the judgment REVERSED , and the case is REMANDED for further proceeding s in accordance wi th this court’ s opinion. W e find no error in the portion of the trial court’s judgment dismissing appellant s’ claims against appellee Casey Davis, and we order it AFFIRMED . We order appellee Hap py Hide - A - Way Civic Club, Inc. to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General, *Appellant, v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company. (Matter of Wingate & Cullen.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Reference discharged. Motion for confirmation denied, with ten dollars costs. Order to be settled by Bookes, J. Opinion by Bookes, J.; Westbrook, J., not acting.
* Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7531
DAVID LUCAS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CRIME RECORDS CENTER, Director; DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; NAVAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES; DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-05-562) Submitted: April 26, 2006 Decided: June 1, 2006 Before LUTTIG, * TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Lucas, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: David Lucas appeals from the district court’s orders denying his “Petition for Pre-Action Discovery” pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 and motion for reconsideration pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning that the pre-action discovery request, a precursor to filing a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), must be filed in the court that imposed sentence. See28 U.S.C. § 2255; Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court , 410 U.S. 484, 497 (1973). We also grant Lucas’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### In the Matter of the Election of Daniel C. Corbin and others, *as Directors, etc., Respondents, v.*Joseph Rodbourn and others, *Appellants.*

Order affirmed on opinion of court below, with costs, under section 3240, Code of Civil Procedure.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 57 (Monday, March 26, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14166-14167]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2007-10]


Petitions for Exemption; Summary of Petitions Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief 
from specific requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to 
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of 
the FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor 
the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to 
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket 
number involved and must be received on or before April 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the petition to the Docket Management 
System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket 
number FAA-2007-27452 at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to 
receive confirmation that the FAA received your comments, include a 
self-addressed, stamped postcard.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing the petition, 
any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the 
Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,

[[Page 14167]]

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office 
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building 
at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may 
review public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Thor, ANM-113, (425) 227-2127, 
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-
3356 (for STRONG Aero Engineering), or Frances Shaver, (202-267-9681), 
Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. This notice is 
published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 19, 2007.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petitions for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2007-27452.
    Petitioner: STRONG Aero Engineering.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 25.853(d).
    Description of Relief Sought: STRONG Aero Engineering is seeking an 
exemption from Sec.  25.853(d) to permit use of interior materials that 
do not comply with the head release and smoke emissions requirements, 
on McDonnell Douglas DC-9-87 (MD-87) airplanes, with certain 
limitations.

 [FR Doc. E7-5495 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
No. 47945.

#### Protests 610852-G, etc., of John Zimmermann Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Caradine*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 69, C. D. 664) the protests were sustained as to certain of the hats in question.
#### Demasco De La Cruz et al., Appellants, v City of New York et al., Respondents.

[633 NYS2d 145]

—Resettled order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas McKeon, J.), entered September 26, 1994, which, *inter alia,*granted the motion of *169defendants City of New York and New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

As plaintiffs did not seek to amend the notice of claim within the one-year-and-90-day period of limitations, the complaint was properly dismissed *(Pierson v City of New York,*56 NY2d 950). Plaintiffs’ effort to change the name of the allegedly negligent hospital from that designated in the original notice of claim, more than 90 days after the cause of action had accrued (but before the one-year-and-90-day period of limitations had expired), constitutes an attempt to add a new claim and thus, permission to file a late notice of claim was necessary (see, *Capalbo v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*147 AD2d 362; *see also, Bourguignon v City of New York,*157 AD2d 644). Hence, even if the May 9,1983 "notice” were intended to be an amended notice of claim, it is a nullity as it was served upon defendants without leave of court *(Chikara v City of New York,*10 AD2d 862, *lv denied*11 AD2d 688, *appeal dismissed*8 NY2d 1014). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative - one page introduction
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB of
CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No.
333-109138) of our report, dated January 27, 2004, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of CommerceFirst Bancorp, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and 2002,
and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders'
equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001.

/s/ Trice Geary & Myers, LLC
----------------------------
March 10, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2206

In Re: STUART WAYNE TOMPKINS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(1:10-cv-00978-TDS-LPA)

Submitted: December 30, 2013 Decided: January 14, 2014

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stuart Wayne Tompkins, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Stuart Wayne Tompkins petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking assistance from this court in enforcing any possible 

settlement this court may have issued in a prior appeal.* 

Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court,

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 

509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is 

available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the 

relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 

135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). The relief sought by Tompkins is not 

available by way of mandamus. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED

 * We grant Tompkins’ request for leave to file the petition.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8446 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 18, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 8446 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Critical Mineral Con3 sistency Act of 2024’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CRITICAL MATERIALS INCLUDED AS CRITICAL MIN5 ERALS. 

6 Section 7002 of the Energy Act of 2020 (30 U.S.C. 

7 1606) is amended— 

8 (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A), to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘critical 

10 mineral’ means— 

11 ‘‘(i) any mineral, element, substance, 

12 or material designated as critical by the 

13 Secretary under subsection (c); and 

14 ‘‘(ii) a critical material as determined 

15 by the Secretary of Energy under para16 graph (2)(A).’’; and 

17 (2) in subsection (c)(5), by adding at the end 

18 the following: 

19 ‘‘(C) INCLUSION OF CRITICAL MATE20 RIALS.—Not later than 45 days after the date 

21 on which the Secretary of Energy determines a 

22 non-fuel mineral, element, substance, or mate23 rial to be a critical material under subsection 

24 (a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall update the list of 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 8446 RFS

1 critical minerals published under paragraph (3) 

2 to include such critical material.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 14, 

2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 64225.

protests 58/1093, etc. (New York).

#### Berge Norman, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

*480Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 39, C.A.D. 669), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 41841.

#### Protest 97218-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of embroidered laces and embroidered veils. The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained as to these items.
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. 09-10295

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS RESENDIZ-MARTINEZ, also known as Jesus Resendiz-Ramirez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:08-CR-173-1

Before KING, STEWART, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jesus Resendiz-Martinez (Resendiz) appeals the 48 month sentence

imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following

deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(1)(2). Resendiz challenges

the district court’s upwardly departing from criminal history category VI

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a), p.s., arguing that the decision to depart was not

justified by the facts in his case and that the court failed to follow the

incremental approach in determining the extent of departure.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 15, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-10295 Document: 00511006288 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2010
No. 09-10295

2

We need not resolve the parties’ dispute over the standard of review

governing Resendiz’s first issue because under either standard, Resendiz’s

argument fails. The district court found that the criminal history substantially

underrepresented Resendiz’s serious criminal history and the likelihood that he

will commit other crimes. Here and below, Resendiz challenged only the first

part of that finding. Under § 4A1.3, a district court may upwardly depart on

either basis. Moreover, the district court’s reasons for departure advanced the

objectives of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and are justified by

the facts of this case. See United States v. Zuniga-Peralta, 442 F.3d 345, 347

(5th Cir. 2006). 

Resendiz’s arguments below did not preserve his argument that the

district court erred by failing to following the incremental approach required by

§ 4A1.3(a)(4)(B). This is the type of error that, if proper objection had been

made, the district court could have corrected. See Puckett v. United States, 129

S. Ct. 1423, 1428 (2009); United States v. Ocana, 204 F.3d 585, 589 (5th Cir.

2000). The error here is the district court’s failure to “show its work” in arriving

at the 48 month sentence. Resendiz does not argue, and there is nothing in the

record to show, that the district court would have, or could not have, imposed a

lesser sentence if it had employed the incremental approach. Thus, Resendiz’s

substantial rights were not affected. See Puckett, 129 S. Ct. at 1431; United

States v. Jones, 489 F.3d 679, 682 (5th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-10295 Document: 00511006288 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2010
##### 



Exhibit 10.45
 RESTATED AND AMENDED PROMISSORY NOTE
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007
 FOR VALUE RECEIVED,
 Interest Rate The Wall Street Journal
 Calculation of Interest
 Repayment Schedule st
 Prepayment
 Acceleration




---



##### 



Expenses of Collection
 Waiver of Protest
 Binding Nature
 Security for Repayment
 Original Note
  2




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 BORROWER:ATTEST:
    
    RIO VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP L.P.By Rio Vista Operating GP LLC,its General PartnerBy:
    
    
    
    By:Name:
    
    
    
    Name:
    
    Ian T. BothwellTitle:
    
    
    
    Title:
    
    Vice President, Chief Financial OfficerACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED:HOLDER:TRANSMONTAIGNE PRODUCT SERVICES, INC.By:Name:
    
    William S. DickeyTitle:
    
    President and Chief Operating Officer
  3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1860

APRIL MCDANIEL, Plaintiff – Appellant,

v. GREYHOUND LINES, INC.; LISA BORROW, Manager at Greyhound; TOMMY SCHEWL, Area Manager at Greyhound; JANE DOE, a/k/a Leslie, Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00130-FDW-CH)

Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

April McDaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Douglas McKnight, Robert Allen Sar, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: April McDaniel appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice her civil complaint alleging employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The court specifically dismissed the action noting that because it had not ruled on the merits of the compliant and was dismissing it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, McDaniel was free to refile her complaint after curing these defects. A dismissal without prejudice is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present case, the district court properly found that McDaniel failed to allege facts establishing subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Because McDaniel could possibly cure these defects by amending her complaint, we dismiss this appeal. Id. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 48597.

#### Protests 35019-K, etc., of Antolini & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of cheese similar to that involved in *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706). In accordance therewith -it was held that an allowance of *2%*percent should have been made in the weight of certain of the cheese, and that an allowance of 1 percent should have been made in the weight of certain other cheese to compensate for the weight of the foreign substances. The protests were sustained in accordance with said stipulation.
No. 54109.

#### Biddle Sawyer Corp. and Importers Commission Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 135782-K and 845516-G (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The protests were dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 11942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4600]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is 
soliciting public comment, ideas, and suggestions on improving customer 
service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at 1 p.m., 
Eastern Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227, or 
(414) 231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Joint Committee of the Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel (TAP) will be held Wednesday, April 4, 2007, at 1 p.m. Eastern 
Time via a telephone conference call. You can submit written comments 
to the panel by faxing to (414) 231-2363, or by mail to Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel, Stop 1006MIL, P.O. Box 3205, Milwaukee, WI, 53201-3205, 
or you can contact us at http://www.improveirs.org. Please contact 
Barbara Toy at 1-888-912-1227 or (414) 231-2360 for additional 
information.
    The agenda will include the following: discussion of issues and 
responses brought to the Joint Committee; office report; and discussion 
of next meeting.

    Dated: March 7, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-4600 Filed 3-13-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
----

| (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. |

|                                                                                              |                     |                                                             |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Emmanuel      TsoupanariasPrincipal      Executive OfficerChief Executive Officer and    Chairman |                                                                                                               | Chris      TheoharisPrincipal      Financial Officer   |
| February      3rd,       2009                                                                |                                                                                                               | February 3rd,       2009                                    |