alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-11264 Summary Calendar
STEVIE ANDRE ROBERSON Plaintiff-Appellant

v. DHIRAJLAL PATEL , DR; F BAXTER, Medical Administrator; DENISE DESHIELDS, Medical Director; TIMOTHY SIMMONS, Warden; KAREN JONES, Correctional Officer Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:05-CV-286
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Stevie Andre Roberson, Texas prisoner # 1222812, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which he alleged the defendants acted with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. Roberson maintains the district court erred in denying his claim that Dr. Patel acted with deliberate indifference in that he: delayed providing treatment for Roberson’s broken toe; continued the same treatment despite Roberson’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September 8, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-11264

2 complaintsofpain; and w as not competent totreat Roberson’smedical problems. Roberson has not shown the district court erred in denying his claims against Dr. Patel. Roberson did not establish that his April 2005 sic k call requests or grievances provided Dr. Patel notice of his complaint ofa broken toe. Dr. Patel examined Roberson’s feet in May 2005, and found no swelling, no deformi ties,
some loss of range of motion, no pain or tenderness, no redness or warmth; although Roberson complained of a knot on his toe, there was no indication he complained of a broken toe at that appointment. Roberson first complained ofa broken toe to Dr. Patel in an examination
on 23June 2005. At that time, Dr. Patel observed no swelling, no deformity, no redness or warmth, no tenderness, full range ofmotion at the metatarsal carpal joint, no pain, and felt no mass; he ordered an X-ray ofthe toe. T hus, Roberson’s medical records show Dr. Patel did not act with deliberate indifference to Roberson’s serious medical needs. See Dominov. Tex. Dep’t ofCriminal Justice , 239 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2001). Roberson contends that Correctional Officer Jones acted with deliberate indifference by failing to issue wider boots to Roberson, as ordered by Dr. Patel. The medical records and grievances show that Dr. Patel did not issue a prescription for wider boots, but rather referred Roberson toOfficer Jones’ office to have hisfeet measured. Roberson’s allegations indicate that, at most, Officer Jones was negligent in measuring his feet and not providing wider boots. Acts ofnegligence do not constitute deliberate indifference. See Domino, 239 F.3d at 756; see also Gobert v. Caldwell , 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Roberson’s motion for en banc hearing is DENIED.
#### Evelyn O. DROWNE, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and DCS/Comptroller, Civilian Payroll Section, APGC, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, Respondents.

No. L-267.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

July 22, 1969.

James E. Moore, Mobile, and E. Wilson Crump, II, Niceville, for petitioner.

Patrick H. Mears, and Alex D. Little-field, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The record herein having been supplemented by the filing of additional documents reflecting that the petitioner herein has been retroactively restored to her employment by action of the United States Civil Service Commission, the petition for certiorari now before this court is denied.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00087-CV

Javon DUKES,

Appellant

v.

Ana LITOFSKY and Michael Litofsky,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV00365

Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. It is ORDERED that no costs shall be assessed against appellant in 

relation to this appeal because he qualifies as indigent under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

20.

SIGNED May 6, 2020.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. James T. SPEER, Relator, v. Honorable Claude R. EDWARDS, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Orange County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 71-656.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 28, 1971.

Prohibition denied.
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the County Court at Law No. 4 of Williamson County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on May 16,

2017, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

In the Interest of T.C.A and M.A.A., Children

Case Number: 07-17-00134-CV Trial Court Number: 06-178-FC4

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated May 16, 2017, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on August 2, 2017.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY
1 

### Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 6:51 PM

To: roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov; Richard Ta kaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov)

Cc: Pallarino, Bob; Linder, Steven; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700;

Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4;

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Mizuno, Arleen M CIV NAVFAC HI, PRJ412;

steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - March 17, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of March 17, 2015. In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1

‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2

‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP

‐ 8 free product is unknown. Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration. This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination. Prepare models for petroleum JP

‐ 8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.

No change.

c. Action 3

‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP

‐ 8 free product. Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.

No change.

d. Action 4

‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex. This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.

d.(1) Groundwater Monitoring Wells

No change.

d.(2) Site Characterization2 No change.

d.(3) AOC/SOW

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4) Request for Additional Information

No change.

d.(5) BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

No change.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron
Dismissed and Opinion Filed December 7, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01432-CV 

No. 05-15-01433-CV 

No. 05-15-01434-CV 

No. 05-15-01435-CV 

IN RE JASON ALLAN OJENA, Relator 

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-58985-L, F07-59105-L, F07-73821-L, F07-59037-L 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

In this petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests that the Court order the trial court 

to rule on his motion for an evidentiary hearing. By order dated December 3, 2015, the trial 

court denied relator’s motion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is now moot. See

In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) ( “A case 

becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the legal 

proceedings.”); State Bar of Tex. v. Gomez, 891 S.W.2d 243, 245 (Tex. 1994) (orig. proceeding) 

(stating that for controversy to be justiciable, there must be a real controversy between the parties 

that will be actually resolved by the judicial relief sought); Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 
 –2– 

S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (court will not issue mandamus if it would be 

useless or unavailing). 

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. 

151432F.P05 /Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
CONSOLIDATED EDISON, INC.
                       Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                               Twelve Months Ended
                             (Thousands of Dollars)


                                                    JUNE                 JUNE
                                                    1999                 1998
                                               ----------           ---------


Earnings
 Net Income for Common Stock                     $721,895             $723,412
 Preferred Dividends                               14,731               18,209
 Federal Income Tax                               709,226              460,170
 Federal Income Tax Deferred                     (272,835)             (60,780)
 Investment Tax Credits Deferred                   (8,594)              (8,770)
                                               ----------           ----------

    Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax    1,164,423            1,132,241

Fixed Charges*                                    338,967              355,319
                                               ----------           ----------


    Total Earnings Before Federal Income Tax
      and Fixed Charges                        $1,503,390           $1,487,560
                                               ==========           ==========


* Fixed Charges

 Interest on Long-Term Debt                      $290,520             $303,379
 Amort. of Debt Discount, Premium & Expense        13,771               12,878
 Interest on Component of Rentals                  18,283               18,367
 Other Interest                                    16,393               20,695
                                               ----------           ----------

    Total Fixed Charges                          $338,967             $355,319
                                               ==========           ==========



    Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges               4.44                 4.19
EXHIBIT 34.1










ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES













REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder


Entergy Texas, Inc.


Beaumont, Texas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Texas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for Entergy Texas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2012
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

C ONTINUING A BATEMENT O RDER

Appellate case name: Cornelius Milan Harper v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00641

- CR

Trial court case number: 11

- DCR

- 056513

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

On August 13, 2015, this Court abated the appeal and directed the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether portions of the reporter’s record were inaccurate and, if so, whether the reporter’s record co uld be corrected. We ordered the trial court to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days.

The trial court has held a number of hearings and has appointed a certified court reporter

to attempt t o prepare a corrected reporter’s record. A corrected reporter’s record was tendered to this Court on September 26

- 27, 2016. On September 29, 2016, the trial judge asked for an extension of time until November 7, 2016, so that, after the parties review th e corrected record, a hearing can be held to address whether the record may be certified and filed together with the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

We GRANT the trial court’s request and extend the deadline until November 7, 2016 for the filing of the corrected reporter’s record and the supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually

Date: October 4, 2016
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 30, 2017

No. 04-17-00139-CR

Demond FRANKLIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR6149A

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On October 26, 2017, appellant filed a motion to amend his brief to correct certain 

“[m]inor errors” contained therein. After review, we GRANT appellant’s motion and accept 

appellant’s amended brief as filed.

 We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 30th day of October, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00105-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.D.L.

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-PA-01955

Honorable Christine Vasquez-Hortick, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ, AND CHIEF JUSTICE 

MARION (RET.)1

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order terminating 

appellants’ parental rights is AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are taxed against appellants. 

SIGNED July 10, 2024.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

1

Sitting by assignment pursuant to section 74.003(b) of the Texas Government Code
Exhibit 31.2.2 

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

CON EDISON OF NEW YORK—Principal Financial Officer 

 

I, Joan S. Freilich, the principal financial officer of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004 of Consolidated Edison Company of NewYork, Inc.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, thisreport 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 periodcovered by this report; 

 

3. Based on myknowledge, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

 

4. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, 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) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986.] 

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and 

 

(b) Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 5, 2004
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00093

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.M

. ,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

T rial Court No. 2014

- PA

- 01503 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The appellant ’ s motion for extension of time to file brief is hereby GRA NTED. Time is extended to May 16 , 2016.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justi ce

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

court on this 27th day of April, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Cler k of Court
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2040 

To update thresholds for certain currency transaction reports and suspicious 

activity reports, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. LOUDERMILK (for himself, Mr. BARR, Mr. EMMER, and Mr. GONZALEZ

of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To update thresholds for certain currency transaction reports 

and suspicious activity reports, 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Financial Reporting 

5 Threshold Modernization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. UPDATING THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN CURRENCY 

7 TRANSACTION REPORTS AND SUSPICIOUS 

8 ACTIVITY REPORTS. 

9 (a) THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN CURRENCY TRANS10 ACTION REPORTS.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2040 IH

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the end of 

2 the 180-day period beginning on the date of the en3 actment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury 

4 shall revise regulations issued with respect to section 

5 5313 of title 31, United States Code, to update each 

6 $10,000 threshold amount in such regulations to 

7 $30,000. 

8 (2) THRESHOLD FOR REPORTS RELATING TO

9 COINS AND CURRENCY RECEIVED IN NONFINANCIAL

10 TRADE OR BUSINESS.—Section 5331 of title 31, 

11 United States Code, is amended by striking 

12 ‘‘$10,000’’ each place such term appears in heading 

13 or text and inserting ‘‘$30,000’’. 

14 (b) THRESHOLDS FOR SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY RE15 PORTS.—Not later than the end of the 180-day period be16 ginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, each 

17 Federal department or agency that issues regulations with 

18 respect to reports on suspicious transactions described 

19 under section 5318(g) of title 31, United States Code, 

20 shall update each $5,000 threshold amount in such regula21 tions to $10,000 and each $2,000 threshold amount in 

22 such regulation to $3,000. 

23 (c) UPDATING THE MONEY SERVICES BUSINESS

24 DEFINITION THRESHOLDS.—Not later than the end of the 

25 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2040 IH

1 of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury shall revise sec2 tion 1010.100(ff) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, 

3 to update each $1,000 threshold amount in such regula4 tions to $3,000. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS