alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00651-CV

Lauren Ashley Alleman, Appellant

v.

Daryl James Baugh, John Michael Baugh, and Deborah Eileen Baugh, Appellees

FROM THE 425TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

NO. 19-1737-F425, THE HONORABLE DIB WALDRIP, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 

Lauren Ashley Alleman attempts to appeal from the regional presiding judge’s

“Order Denying Motion to Recuse Judge.” On November 16, 2023, the Clerk of this Court

informed Alleman that this Court appears to lack jurisdiction because there is no final judgment 

or appealable interlocutory order. The Clerk requested that Alleman file a response by 

November 27, 2023, explaining how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over this matter. More 

than ten days have passed, and Alleman has not filed a response.

This Court has jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from certain 

interlocutory orders made appealable by statute. Scripps NP Operating, LLC v. Carter, 

573 S.W.3d 781, 788 (Tex. 2019). Alleman seeks to appeal from an order of the regional 

presiding judge denying her motion to recuse the trial judge in the underlying case. See Tex. R. 

Civ. P. 18a(f)(1) (directing trial judge to either grant litigant’s motion to recuse or refer motion to 

regional presiding judge for ruling). An order denying a recusal motion “may be reviewed only 
2

for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” Id. 18a(j)(1)(A). The record does 

not include a final judgment. Absent a final judgment or other statutory authorization for this 

appeal, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Scripps, 573 S.W.3d at 788; In re Commitment 

of Dunsmore, No. 01-22-00690-CV, 2023 WL 2375937, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Mar. 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal of order denying motion to recuse for want 

of jurisdiction where there was no final judgment).

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Rosa Lopez Theofanis, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 8, 2023
Southern Star Central Corp.

Southern Star Central Gas PIpeline, Inc.

4700 Highway 56

Owensboro, KY 42301



May 10, 2010



Beverly H. Griffith

1919 Lexington Avenue

Owensboro, KY 42301



Dear Beverly:



This letter is being presented for your consideration as respects the current Employment Agreement Agreement between Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc. (SSCGP), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Star Central Corp. (Company) and you, Beverly H. Griffith, named Executive dated August 11, 2005, as amended January 1, 2009.



Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the original Agreement, dated August 11, 2005, language provides for its expiration concurrent with the fifth anniversary from that date, or August 11, 2010. SSCGP and Company desire to extend said Agreement until December 31, 2010.  The Agreement will expire at midnight December 31, 2010 without prior notice being required of either SSCGP and Company, or Executive.



SSCGP and Company will be in the process of reviewing potential employment terms of all SSCGP Officers beyond that date.



If the above terms are acceptable to you, please execute in the space provided below and return to Rob Carlton, Vice President, Human Resources by close of business May 13, 2010.  Otherwise, the existing Agreement terminates on August 11, 2010.



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL CORP.



/s/ Susanne W. Harris

Susanne W. Harris



SOUTHERN STAR CENTRAL GAS PIPELINE, INC



/s/ Robert W. Carlton

Robert W. Carlton

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:



/s/ Beverly H. Griffith

Beverly H. Griffith

Date:  5/11/2010



# Endnotes





Exhibit 10.33
Order entered December 21 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00624 - CR No. 05 - 16 - 0062 5 - CR JAMAL DESMOND MCCLEN TON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11 - 26246 - I & F16 - 75306 - I



### O RDER The Court REINSTATES the se appeal s . On December 7, 2016, w e ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why appellant’s b rief has not been filed. We ADOPT the December 9, 2016 findings that: (1) appellant desires to pursue the appeal s ; (2) appellant is indigent and represented by court

appointed counsel Lawrence Mitchell ; (3) counsel’s explanation for the delay in filing ap pellant’s brief is due to medical reasons ; and (4) counsel requests an additional thirty days to file the brief

. We ORDER appellant to file his brief within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*The O. and L. R. R. Co. *v.*George R. Pond, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Bockes, J.
#### RUTH B. MAIMONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PHILIP MAIMONE, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

May 11, 1964. Denied.

*Mr. Thomas F. Shebell*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Clancy & Hayden*for the respondent.

On petition for certification to Superior Court, Appellate Division.
November 17, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

JEROME FISHER PLEASANT, Appellant

NO. 14-15-00970-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Greater Jamaica 

Development 

Corporation 

90-04 161 Street 

Jamaica, NY 11432 

718 291-0282 

Fax 718 658-1405 

www.gjdc.org 

March 11,2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Docket DOT il l IIIII Wm 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

Thank you for the opportunity to express my support for the application for antitrust immimity 

and proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines and Japan Airlines. The 

proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for oneworld to compete effectively with the 

Star and Sky Team alliance. This increased interalliance competition will in turn enhance the 

benefits of the Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S.-Japan Open Skies, 

then by serving as a foundation for fiarther liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, I encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this 

application as it would enable these oneworld alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver 

highly competitive air transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a 

positive impact on air travel by offering customers more service, scheduling and pricing options 

and will help to ensure that customers continue to benefit from having three competitive air 

alliances to choose from. 

I urgp you to quickly approve this application. 

sincerely, 

lisle Towei 

President 

l:\DocACT Canapoodaic^LxdcfMxttcr ofSivpan DOT.EXX:
#### Charles Nelson, *Respondent, v.*The Village of Canisteo, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by Hardin, J.
Before the Third Division,

December 22, 1954

No. 58634.

protests 115715-K, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Bohemian Distributing Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155) and *United States*v. *Josebra*(41 C. C. P. A. 206, C. A. D. 552), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge 1 for the Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for 2 the District of Nebraska.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-2322

___________ Joseph L. Johnson, * * Plaintiff-Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Nebraska. Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner * of Social Security, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 9, 1996 Filed: March 3, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN and LAY, Circuit Judges, and Smith, District Judge. 1

___________ PER CURIAM.

Joseph Johnson brings this appeal from the distric t court’s order affirming an administrative law judge (ALJ)’ s

2 decision to deny him social security disability benefits. Th e district court upheld the ALJ’s ruling because it did not contain errors of law and was supported by substantial evidence on th e record as a whole. See Mitche ll v. Shalala , 25 F.3d 712, 714 (8th Cir. 1994). We have reviewed the parties’ arguments careful ly, and we agree with the district court’s determination. Because an-2-

opinio n would lack precedential value, we affirm without furthe r discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. IT IS SO ORDERED. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0597

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CAVEY LITTLE ROSSBACH,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 1, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 26 2023

07/26/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0597
Before the Second Division,

December 30, 1938

No. 40262.

#### Protests 494245-G, etc., of Rolland Frères, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain items consist of articles in chief value of cellulose filaments similar to those involved in Abstract 37230. The claim at 60 percent under paragraph 31 was therefore sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
     financial statements of Destiny Media Technologies Inc. which are included
     in its annual report, Form 10-KSB for the period ended August 31, 2000 and
     is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.

</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                          97,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               212,564
<PP&E>                                         184,193
<DEPRECIATION>                                 197,368
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 731,415
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          263,822
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,501
<OTHER-SE>                                     250,502
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   731,415
<SALES>                                         85,544
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                85,544
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,681,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,580,729)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,580,729)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,580,729)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>
EX-99.2
                                  PATENT

United States Patent No. 6,131,331

Donald V. Duffy, Jr., October 17, 2000

Composition and method of enhancing moisture content of tree and
plants.

ABSTRACT

Composition and method for enhancing the moisture content of
growing and cut trees and plants, including the steps of
providing a polyacrylimide polymer in crystalline form, mixing
salt with the polymer wherein the salt comprises about 5% by
weight relative to the polymer, treating the mixture in a
reaction tube for about 60 seconds, and applying the mixture to
the tree or plant to enhance the ability thereof to absorb and
retain moisture.
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LORIE ALMAZAN and ESTHER

GALVEZ, 

Plaintiffs, 

No. 2:04-cv-1872-MCE-PAN-(JFM)

v. ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND

DISPOSITION

AZIZURANMAN RAHMANI; SAYED A.

KARIMI, individually and dba 

ORANGE CAB CO.; ORANGE CAB CO.;

NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION, and DOES 1-20, 

Defendants.

________________________________/

Pursuant to the representations of the attorney for

Defendants, the Court determined that this case settled as of

March 21, 2006. 

The parties are granted an extension of time to file

dispositional documents on or before May 22, 2006. 

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:04-cv-01872-MCE -PAN Document 37 Filed 04/24/06 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

Failure to comply with this Order may be grounds for the

imposition of sanctions on any and all counsel as well as any

party or parties who cause non-compliance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 21, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:04-cv-01872-MCE -PAN Document 37 Filed 04/24/06 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,048] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 1, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Emerson Network Power, formerly Artesyn Communications Products, Madison, Wisconsin. 

The petitioner has requested that this petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of March, 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

 [FR Doc. E7-5849 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 56034.

protest 172945-K (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as not landed were not in fact landed. In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following the decision cited it was held that -duty and internal revenue tax are not assessable upon such portions of the merchandise as were reported by the inspector as not landed, not found. The protest was sustained to this extent.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 1, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00530

- CV

Abelardo G. GONZALEZ

, Appellant

v.

Isidro R. ALANIZ and Pedro Morales, Appellees

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CVK001190D1 Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On January 22, 2021, Appellant filed a motion notifying this court that the clerk and reporter had not yet filed the clerk’s and reporter’s records as requested. The motion asked this court to order the clerk and reporter to file their records.

On November 3, 2020, the clerk filed the clerk’s record. On or about January 13, 2021, this court advised the reporter to file the record by February 12, 2021. Appellant’s m otion is

MOOT.

_________________________________ Patricia O. A lvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of February, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICH AEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
No. 61949.

#### J. G. Pieri Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 153095-K, etc. (New York).

*557Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of olives in brine similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Moscahlades Bros., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 Cust. Ct. 127, C. D. 1917), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
No. 42973.

#### Protest 997676-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 37637 the daggers in question were held dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 397 as claimed.
#### George Chalmers, *Appellant, v.*Mary E. Strong, *as Executrix of*Latham Cornell Strong, *Deceased, Respondent.*

Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by Brady, J.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 645 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8689 

[Report No. 118–780] 

To require Amtrak to publicly disclose certain bonus compensation paid to 

Amtrak executives, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2024 

Mr. MOLINARO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Additional sponsor: Mr. GRAVES of Missouri 

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House 

on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed 

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic] 

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 11, 2024] 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8689 RH

A BILL 

To require Amtrak to publicly disclose certain bonus compensation paid to Amtrak executives, and for other purposes. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8689 RH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Amtrak Executive Bonus 

5 Disclosure Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMTRAK REPORTS AND AUDITS. 

7 Section 24315(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by inserting ‘‘, and make available to the 

10 public on the website of Amtrak,’’ after ‘‘submit to 

11 Congress’’; and 

12 (2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 

13 following: 

14 ‘‘(2) provide the annual base pay and any bonus 

15 compensation paid to a member of the executive lead16 ership team (including the chief executive officer, 

17 president, and officers) of Amtrak, including the cri18 teria and metrics used to determine any such bonus 

19 compensation; and’’. 

Amend the title so as to read: ‘‘A bill to amend title 

49, United States Code, to require Amtrak to include information on base pay and bonus compensation of certain 

Amtrak executives, and for other purposes.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
Union Calendar No. 645 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8689 

[Report No. 118–780] 

A BILL 

To require Amtrak to publicly disclose certain 

and for other purposes. bonus compensation paid to Amtrak executives, 

NOVEMBER 26, 2024 

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee 

dered to be printed of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and orVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:46 Nov 26, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6651 Sfmt 6651 E:\BILLS\H8689.RH H8689

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
* 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. 06-60979

Summary Calendar

EDUARDO NAVARRETE; MARIA ESTHER NAVARRETE;

ESTHER NAVARRETE

Petitioners

v.

PETER D. KEISLER, ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 003 488

BIA No. A79 003 489

BIA No. A79 006 490

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eduardo Navarrete, Maria Esther Navarrete (wife), and Esther Navarrete

(daughter) have filed a petition for review of a final order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of their applications for the

cancellation of removal. Petitioners maintain the United States citizen daughter

of Eduardo and Maria Esther Navarrete, Sara Navarrete, will suffer exceptional

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 10, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-60979

2

and extremely unusual hardship if they are required to return to their native

Mexico. Petitioners contend the Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA erred in

finding Sara Navarrete would not suffer such hardship. Petitioners further

contend the IJ erred when he refused: to subpoena one of their witnesses; and

to consider all of their documentary evidence. 

This court lacks jurisdiction to review an IJ's hardship determination in

the context of a cancellation of removal application because it is a discretionary

decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524,

526-28 (5th Cir. 2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004).

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed to the extent it seeks review from the

decision to deny cancellation of removal.

Petitioners also claim the denial of cancellation of removal violated their

due process rights. We have jurisdiction to consider this legal question.

Hernandez-Castillo v. Moore, 436 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127

S. Ct. 40 (2006). The contention is unavailing, however, as Petitioners’

“[e]ligibility for discretionary relief from a removal order is not a liberty or

property interest warranting due process protection”. Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft,

349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). To the extent Petitioners challenge the denial of cancellation of

removal on due process grounds,the petition is denied. To the extent Petitioners

assert the IJ violated their due process rights when he refused to subpoena their

witness and consider their evidence, the record establishes that the IJ did not

violate Petitioners’ due process rights. 

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.