alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  May 16, 1939
Honorable G. M. Mann CountyAuditor, Hill County Hillsboro, Texas Dear Mr. Mann: expenses election
We are in receipt of yo request our opinion on the a you set forth the following Hill County has ret ty-wide election for The election your desire to kn election expense operly chargeable the

shouldbe charg e sale of the bonds are to be lly to the entire county. 1 Statutes, 1925, provides in fn providingvoting booths, r rubber stamps,tallyon cards,ballot boxes, onveelection called in your countywas a special comeswithin the purview of this statute.

Yours very truly ATTORNEY GF2WU.L OF TEXAS CEC-a BY (signed) Clarence E. Crows APPROVED: Assistant Gerald C. Mann (signed) (Stamped:) Approved ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS OpinionCommittee BY: 0. R. L no Sol""",5.1,0*

IS 10 .s SO"aT~"ID .s I m.rh""s.rl%

on"loa ""Law aPP9ov.D nI", .~~Omll~~ . . .. ..Cd nlCT mm".* Chairman
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 22, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00226

- CR

Jose Trinidad GONZALEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR0458 Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presi ding



### ORDER

This appeal is set for oral argument submission on Tues day, May 19 , 2020, at 9 : 00 a.m. , before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, and Justice Liza A. Rodriguez

. In accordance with the Texas Supreme Court’s emergency orders in response to the COVID

- 1 9 pandemic, the oral argument will be held through the Fourth Court of Appeals ’ Z oom license. Counsel are instructed not to appear at the c ourt’s physical address

.

Counsel will receive a separate e

- mail that will contain a link for the oral argument.

Co unsel are admonished as follows:

1

. T he link to Z oom is only for lead counsel of record and is not to be shared with any other person. Lead counsel will need a computer or other electronic device with a camera , a microphone

, and access to the Internet

. If lead counsel intends to present any exhibits during oral argument, any such exhibits must be electronically filed by noon on the day before

argument.

2. The argument will be l ive streamed to the Court’s YouTube channel for the benefit of

co

- counsel, clients, and the public

. The argument can be accessed using the following link :

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiaWJQ7eW5OQIALdyLN6s3A3

. Lead counsel are encouraged to familiariz e themselves with the Z oom platform . The

clerk of the court will c ontact lead counsel no later than the week before argument to verify connectivity and equipment.

4

. Lead counsel must wear court

- appropriate attire and choose an appropriate background.

The time for oral argument will be limited to twenty minutes for appellant’s opening argument, twenty minutes for appellee’s argument, and ten minutes for appellant’s rebuttal

argument

. If any participant’s link is disconnected during argument, timing of the argument will stop until the participant is able to reconnect.

If either party no longer wishes to present argument, the party must notify this court in writing w ithin seven days of receiving this notice.

E nter ed on this 22 nd day of Apri l , 2020.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_ ____________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# C_2014031EN.01002001.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/20

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2013 — Sesma Merino v OHIM

(Case F-125/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Assessment report - Objectives for 2011/2012 - Measure not having an adverse effect - Action inadmissible)

2014/C 31/33

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alvaro Sesma Merino (El Campello, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Faedo, R. Pethke and P. Saba, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of both the applicant’s staff report for 2011 and the decision setting the objectives to be attained, and a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Sesma Merino to bear his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Sesma Merino to bear his own costs and to bear the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

---

(1)  OJ C 26 of 26.01.2013, p. 72.

1

---
No. 6098.

#### PANAMA SASH & DOOR CO. vs. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

Syllabus.

' 1. Compensation takes place of right between debts equally due and exigible, unless the interests of third persons be prejudiced thereby.

2. A person suffers no prejudice, who might have taken steps to protect his own interests but failed to do so.

Appeal from the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Division “D,” No. 101,089. Hon. Porter Parker, Judge. . .

A. D. Danzigér, for plaintiff' and appellee.

J. Zach Spearing, for defendant and appellant.

*271K. V. Biehard, attorney.

His Honor, JOHN ST PAUL,

rendered the opinion and decree of the Court, as follows:

. This is a suit by a furnisher of materials against the surety on a building contract.

Plaintiff’s claim and defendant’s liability do not appear to be seriously contested, but at any rate the claim is fully established and plaintiff has complied, with all the provisions of law necessary to fix defendant’s liability.

The surety has no interest in the recordation of the bond. See 8 Court of Appeal, p., 76, also p. 271.

The surety however has called the owner in warranty (without objection) and shown that when the first installment upon the building became due the owner paid no money to the contractor, but with the latter’s consent, compensated that debt by an outstanding claim which he himself had against the contractor.

Out of this fact it is argued that the owner is liable to the surety for whatever the latter is called upon to pay to plaintiff.

Just why this should be is not made clear.

The parties undoubtedly had a right to compensate their mutual indebtedness, in fact the law itself did it for them (C. C., 2208), unless the surety was prejudiced thereby (O. C., 2215).

But, on the one hand, the owner could not refuse to make the payment, and the contractor was free to' pay whom he pleased, even if insolvent (C. C., 1986).

On the other hand, the surety had a right to protect itself by stopping the payment if it feared the insolvency of the contractor (C. C.,3057, No. 2); or it might even *272have protected itself 'by inserting in its contract some provision which gave it control of "the payment.

Opinion and decree, June 26th, 1914.

Rehearing granted, July 17th, 1914.

So that whatever prejudice the surety suffered, was through its own inaction, or want of foresight; for which the owner is in no way answerable.

The latter had certainly the right to collect the debt which was due him, and was under no obligation to the surety to follow up the contractor and see that he paid the furnishers of materials, that was pre-eminently the duty and interest of the surety, with which the owner had no concern.

The maxim ‘ volenti non fit injuria” applies here. A person suffers no prejudice who might have taken steps to protect his own interest but failed to do so.

Judgment affirmed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03
- 24
- 00455
- CV

Eue Jin Jeong , Appellant

v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper , Appellee

FROM THE 453RD DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY NO. 24
- 1256 , THE HONORABLE SHERRI TIBBE , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The clerk’s record in this appeal was due for filing in this Court on September 9,
2024

. On September 17, 2024 , we notified appellant that no clerk’s record had been filed due to
his failure to pay or make arrangements to pay the trial clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record. The notice requested that appellant make arrangements for the clerk’s record and submit a status report regarding this appeal by September 27, 2024 . Further, the notice advised appellant that his failure to comply with this req uest could result in the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. To date, appellant has not filed a status report or otherwise responded to this Court’s notice, and the clerk’s record has not been filed.
If a trial

- court clerk fails to file the clerk’s record due to an appellant’s failure to pay or make arrangements to pay for the clerk’s fee for preparing the record, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless the appellant was entitled to proceed2 without payment of costs. Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). In this case, appellant has not established
that he is entitled to proceed without payment of costs. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 . Because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the clerk’s record, this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

____________ ______________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Prosecution
Filed: October 4, 2024
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. 08-50103

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

LARRY WAYNE NORWOOD,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:06-CR-979-3

Before KING, STEWART and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Larry Wayne Norwood has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967). Norwood has filed a response. The record is insufficiently

developed to allow consideration at this time of Norwood’s claims of ineffective

assistance of counsel; such claims generally “cannot be resolved on direct appeal

when they have not been raised before the district court since no opportunity 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 23, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50103

2

existed to develop the record on the merits of the allegations.” United States v.

Cantwell, 470 F.3d 1087, 1091 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and

Norwood’s response discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, the

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
No. 45362.

#### Protests 48353-K, etc., of R. Lo Curto et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 49302 and T. D. 49389) it was held that an allowance in weight should have been made to compensate for the inedible covering on the outside of the cheese in question.
#### Shapiro Bros. Factors Corp., Plaintiff, *v.*Nat Goldberg et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 16, 1966.

*Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston <& Rosen (Arthur A. Greenfield*of counsel), for plaintiff. *Klapper & Klapper (Joseph N. Klapper*of counsel), for defendants,

William C. Hecht, Jr., J.

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment. The action is based on two instruments of guarantee of the indebtedness of the principal debtor, one executed by the individual defendants and the other by the corporate defendant. Defendants do not dispute the basic obligation or the account as submitted by plaintiff, except that they claim lack of knowledge as to charge-backs in the sum of $21,507.63 listed under “Disputes” and a further sum of $12,774.62 listed under “ House Purchases “ Disputes ” relates to accounts receivable which the debtor’s customers refuse to pay, which, under the factoring agreement, plaintiff has the right to charge back regardless of the merit of the refusal to pay. “House Purchases” relates to accounts receivable due from the debtor to others of plaintiff’s factored clients and assigned to plaintiff, which is also covered by the factoring agreement and the guarantees. The particularization of these items has been supplied in the reply affidavits.

*1023In all the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment directing an assessment which will require only a discovery of debits and credits, including the identity and amounts of the disputed accounts receivable which have been charged back and of the house purchases. The motion is granted accordingly.
# C_2013304EN.01000803.xml

| 19.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 304/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 304/8

---

Order of the President of the Court of 15 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle — Belgique) — Guy Kleynen v Conseil des ministres

(Case C-99/13) (1)

1

2013/C 304/16

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 141, 18.5.2013.

1

---
## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-962 LT Case No s . 2022-C F -0868

2022-C F -1358



### _____________________________

M ELINDA L E LA Q UANTZ , Appellant 

### ,

v.
S TATE O F F LOR IDA , Appellee



### .

_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. Joel D. Fritton , Judge.
Matthe w J . Metz, Public Def e nder, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defen der , Daytona Beach , for Appellant. Ashley Mo o dy, Atto rney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J . Bradford , Jr., Assistant Attorney Ge neral, Dayto na B each , for Appellee.

August 22 , 2023
P ER C URIAM

. A FFIRMED

. E ISNAUGLE , S OUD , and K ILBANE , JJ ., concur.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331
.

_____________________________
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. PD-0055-10

KYLE LESLIE LACKEY, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ON REHEARING OF APPELLANT’S 

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

FROM THE EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

COLLIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Appellant was convicted of twelve counts of possession of child pornography and,

after revocation of community supervision, was sentenced to confinement for ten years

and fines of $1,500 for each count. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Lackey v. State, (Tex. App. — El Paso, No. 08-08-00012-CR, delivered December 16,

2009). Appellant’s petition for discretionary review was dismissed as untimely filed on
Lackey - 2

May 19, 2010. Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing requesting reinstatement of his

petition so that it will be considered by this Court. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is

granted. His petition filed on March 17, 2010, is reinstated as of June 30, 2010, and will

be considered in accord with Tex.R.App.P. 68. 

Delivered June 30, 2010

Do not publish
# C_2013336EN.01002403.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/24

---

Order of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Yaqub v OHIM — Turkey (ATATURK)

(Case T-580/12) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Appointment of a new representative - Applicant’s failure to act - No need to adjudicate)

2013/C 336/52

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J. Yaqub (Nottingham, United Kingdom)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being: Republic of Turkey

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being:

Re:

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (Case R 2613/2011-2), relating to invalidity proceedings between the Republic of Turkey, and J. Yaqub and G. Yaqub.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application.

| 2. | J. Yaqub shall bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

J. Yaqub shall bear his own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25592-25593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10062]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 660


Fisheries Off West Coast States

CFR Correction

    In title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 660 to end, 
revised as of October 1, 2007, on page 194, in part 660, reinstate 
Sec.  660.510 to read as follows:


Sec.  660.510  Fishing seasons.

    All seasons will begin at 0001 hours and terminate at 2400 hours 
local time. Fishing seasons for the following CPS species are:

[[Page 25593]]

    (a) Pacific sardine. January 1 to December 31, or until closed 
under Sec.  660.509.
    (b) Pacific mackerel. July 1 to June 30, or until closed under 
Sec.  660.509.
[FR Doc. E8-10062 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
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.                  

###### Commission on Civil Rights

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that orientation and planning meetings of the Rhode Island Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, at the Urban League of Rhode Island, located at 246 Prairie Ave. in Providence Rhode Island. The purpose of these meetings is to provide an orientation to new members and plan future activities of the committee. After the meeting, the committee will hear from presenters who will discuss fair housing issues in Rhode Island. 

                    Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by June 13, 2008. The address is Eastern Regional Office, 624 9th St., NW., Washington, DC 20425. Persons wishing to e-mail their comments, or who desire additional information should contact Alfreda Greene, Secretary, at 202-376-7533 or by e-mail to:                     *agreene@usccr.gov.*

Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meetings and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meetings. 

                    Records generated from these meetings may be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meetings. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site,                     *http://www.usccr.gov,*                     or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above e-mail or street address.                 

The meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the Commission and FACA. 

Dated in Washington, DC, May 2, 2008. 

Christopher Byrnes, 

Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.

 [FR Doc. E8-10075 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
EXHIBIT 31.a CERTIFICATE OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Clifford Wildes, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006, of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the Company); 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Companys other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules13a-15 and 15d-15) for the Company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Companys disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date); and (c) Presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The Companys other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Companys auditors and the audit committee of the Companys board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Companys ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Companys auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  1       (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Companys internal controls; and 6. The Companys other certifying officers and I have indicated in this report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: August 21, 2006
        /s/ Clifford WildesClifford Wildes, Chief Executive Officer  * Provide a separate certification for each principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the Company. See Rules 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a).   2