alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1416, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. ARIADNE SHIPPING COMPANY LIMITED, a Liberian corporation, Appellee.

No. 67-853.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

April 15, 1970.

Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Miles, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen and Cotton Howell, Muller, Schenerlein & Bare, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

ORDER ON MANDATE

PER CURIAM.

WHEREAS, the judgment of this court was entered on October 29, 1968 (215 So.2d 51), affirming in part and reversing in part the order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, in the above styled cause; and

WHEREAS, on review of this court’s judgment, by certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States by its opinion and judgment filed March 9, 1970 (396 U.S. -, 90 S.Ct. 872, 25 L.Ed.2d 218), and mandate now lodged in this court, reversed with costs this court’s judgment and remanded the cause to this court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the said opinion and judgment of the United States Supreme Court.

Now, Therefore, It is Ordered that the mandate of this court heretofore issued in this cause on November 12, 1968 is withdrawn, the opinion and judgment filed October 29, 1968 is vacated, the said opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States is herewith made the opinion and judgment of this court, the order of the circuit court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States. Costs allowed on appeal including costs assessed by the United States Supreme Court in the amount of $1,018.04 against Ariadne Shipping Co. Limited, et al., shall be taxed in the circuit court (Rule 3.16, subd. b, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELMER RODOFO ALVARES RIVAS,

aka Elmer Rodolfo Alvarez-Rivas,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-72373

Agency No. A099-465-462

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 13, 2010 ** 

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Elmer Rodolfo Alvares Rivas, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his

FILED

SEP 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-72373

appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his applications for asylum and

withholding of removal.

We reject Alvares Rivas’s claim that he is eligible for asylum based on his

membership in a particular social group, namely public transportation drivers who

resist gang extortion. See Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849, 854-56 (9th Cir. 2009)

(rejecting as a particular social group “young males in Guatemala who are targeted

for gang recruitment but refuse because they disagree with the gang’s criminal

activities”); Santos-Lemus v. Mukasey, 542 F.3d 738, 745-46 (9th Cir. 2008)

(rejecting as a social group “young men in El Salvador resisting gang violence”). 

We also reject Alvares Rivas’s asylum claim based on his anti-gang extortion

political opinion. See INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 482-84 (1992);

Barrios, 581 F.3d at 854-56. Because Alvares Rivas failed to demonstrate that he

was persecuted on account of a protected ground, we deny the petition as to his

asylum and withholding of removal claims. Id. at 856.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DATAMETRICS
CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD ENDED APRIL 27, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-26-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-27-1997
<CASH>                                             740
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,749
<ALLOWANCES>                                        12
<INVENTORY>                                      5,988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,538
<PP&E>                                           6,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,048
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,240
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,857
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,111
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,240
<SALES>                                         10,183
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,183
<CGS>                                            7,357
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 225
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    122
<INCOME-TAX>                                         9
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                113
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.01
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11

                  SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. & SUBSIDIARIES
                SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


                                                       YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                       1998      1997      1996
                                                       ----      ----      ----

Net Earnings ......................................  $55,511   $41,644   $27,422
                                                     =======   =======   =======
Weighted average shares:
  Common shares outstanding .......................   64,005    63,363    56,151
  Common equivalent shares issuable upon
   exercise of employee stock options (1)..........    1,245     1,413     1,603
                                                     -------   -------   -------

    Total weighted average shares -- diluted ......   65,250    64,776    57,754
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Basic earnings per share ..........................  $   .87   $   .66   $   .49
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Diluted earnings per share ........................  $   .85   $   .64   $   .47
                                                     =======   =======   =======

Notes:

(1) Amount calculated using the treasury stock method and fair market values.

(2) All share amounts and earnings per share have been retroactively adjusted to
reflect the 3-for-2  stock split  payable on April 10, 1999 to  shareholders  of
record at the close of business on March 31, 1999.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-20-00263-CV 

 

TIMOTHY CASTLEMAN AND CASTLEMAN CONSULTING, LLC, APPELLANTS 

 

V. 

 

INTERNET MONEY LIMITED D/B/A THE OFFLINE ASSISTANT AND KEVIN 

O’CONNOR, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES 

 No. 07-20-00264-CV 

IN RE TIMOTHY CASTLEMAN AND CASTLEMAN CONSULTING, LLC, RELATORS 

 

November 23, 2020 

 

ORDER 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., PARKER, and DOSS, JJ. 

Internet Money Limited d/b/a The Offline Assistant and Kevin O’Connor (Offline) 

moved to dismiss the above-numbered consolidated proceedings. The latter concern the 

denial of a temporary injunction, an interlocutory appeal therefrom, and a petition for a 

writ of injunction to preserve the jurisdiction of this Court pending disposition of the 

interlocutory appeal. Offline asserts that the trial court’s entry, subsequent to Castleman 

filing the above referenced proceedings, of a final order or summary judgment rendered 

both proceedings moot. We deny the motion without prejudice.
2

The motion to dismiss is founded upon the existence of a final order or summary 

judgment entered by the trial court in the underlying cause, No. 2020-540288. The trial 

court did sign, on October 29, 2020, an order granting Offline’s motion for summary 

judgment. It stated:

On October 14, 2020, the Court having considered [Offline’s] 

Motion for Summary Judgment to be in proper form . . . the 

Court after reviewing the pleadings, motions, exhibits, and 

responses on file, is of the opinion that the Motion for 

Summary Judgment should be granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the . . . Motion for 

Summary Judgment is Granted.

SO ORDERED.

Nowhere in the order is there any declaration as to whether any party was granted 

or denied final relief, in whole or in part, or whether there remains any unresolved issue 

pending in the trial court. The writing, which demonstrates only the trial court’s ruling viz 

a motion, is neither a final appealable order nor a final appealable summary judgment for 

the reasons described in our opinion in Cause No. 07-20-00312-CV, styled Timothy 

Castleman, et al. v. Internet Money Ltd., et al. It fails to adjudicate the rights involved or 

evince a final result recognized by the law. Consequently, the foundation to the pending 

motion is lacking. 

We deny the motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling same if the trial court 

enters a final, appealable order or summary judgment in the underlying cause. 

Per Curiam
255 La. 790

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Ira L. BRINLEE.

No. 50464.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 24, 1970.

In re: Ira L. Brinlee applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Writs Refused. The showing made by relator does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
• 

MOLLY F4 CIS 

JUSTICE 

904s 

Order entered October 24, 2012 

In The 

Court of Ztppeato 

fifth Misaritt of Mexasi at Medias 

No. 05-12-00443-CV 

CLINT SIMON D/B/A SHERLOCK PEST, ET AL., Appellants 

V. 

TUDOR INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 193rd District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-13433 

ORDER 

The Court has before it appellants' October 19, 2012 motion to extend time to file brief 

and appendix. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that the amended brief tendered 

by appellants on October 19, 2012 be timely filed as of today's date.
Department of Environmental Quality 

Matthew H. Mead, Governor 

To protect, conserve, and enhance the Quality of Wyoming's 

environment for the benefit of current and future generations 

To: Nancy Morlock, Program Director 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Program 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street, 8P-R 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

From: Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Date: February 4, 2016 

RE: Revised State of Wyoming Revision 6 Request for Reauthorization 

Dear Ms. Morlock, 

Todd Parfitt. Director 

I am pleased to submit on behalf of the State of Wyoming, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

our revised Revision 6 Request for Reauthorization for the regulation of hazardous wastes in Wyoming. 

This application includes a revision to our Hazardous Waste Rules and Regulations (HWRR/effective 

date March 18, 2015) which utilizes Incorporation By Reference (IBR) of the Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations. The HWRR were last revised by the State of Wyoming in 2008, and were last authorized by 

EPA in 2002. The enclosed documents incorporate revisions to the original Program Description, 

Attorney General's Statement, Statutory Checklist, and Consolidated Checklists C3 and ClO that were 

requested by EPA. The original application for reauthorization was dated May 22, 2015. 

Enclosed please find a single hard copy and an electronic copy of the following: 

1. Revised Program Description 

2. Revised Attorney General's Statement, including: 

Attachment A: RCRA Statutory Checklist 

Attachment B: IBR Consolidated Checklists 

3. Wyoming Hazardous Waste Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1, "General Provisions" 

If you have any questions concerning this package, please contact Alan Thompson (DEQ/SHWD) at 307-

777-8759 or alan.thompson@wyo.gov. 

Sincerely, 

~ Todd Parfitt 

Director, DEQ 

Herschler Building · 122 West 25th Street · Cheyenne, WY 82002 · http ://deq.state.wy.us 

ADMIN/OUTREACH ABANDONED MINES 

(307) 777-7758 (307) 777-6145 

FAX 777-3610 FAX 777-6462 

AIR QUALITY 

(307) 777-7391 

FAX 777-5616 

INDUSTRIAL SITING 

(307) 777-7369 

FAX 777-6937 

LAND QUALITY 

(307) 777-7756 

FAX 777-5864 

SOLID & HAZ. WASTE 

(307) 777-7752 

FAX 777-5973 

WATER QUALITY 

(307) 777-7781 

FAX 777-5973
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6551-6552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3419]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
advisory committee meeting of the National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel:

    Committee name: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.
    Date: Febuary 26, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.--until conclusion (approximately 4 hours).
    Place: Stanyan Park Hotel, 750 Stanyan Street, San Francisco, CA 
94117.
    Contact Person: Irene B. Glowinski, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIGMS, Office of Scientific Review, 45 Center Drive, 
Room 1AS-13J, Bethesda, MD 20892-6200, 301-594-2772 or 301-594-3663.
    Purpose: To review and evaluate grant applications. This meeting 
will be closed in accordance with the provisions set forth in secs. 
552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C. The discussions of these 
applications could reveal confidential trade secrets of commercial 
property such as patentable material and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the applications, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion 
of personal privacy.


[[Page 6552]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.821, 
Biophysics and Physiological Sciences; 93.859, Pharmacological 
Sciences; 93.862, Genetics Research; 93.863, Cellular and Molecular 
Basis of Disease Research; 93.880, Minority Access Research Careers 
[MARC]; and 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support [MBRS])

    Dated: February 5, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-3419 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             5
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 FEB-27-2000
<CASH>                                              8840
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     111426
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                        82744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   19868
<PP&E>                                            396187
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (155305)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    544451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             118066
<BONDS>                                           205896
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                            9228
<OTHER-SE>                                        158375
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      544451
<SALES>                                           296088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  296088
<CGS>                                             258112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     258112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  6370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     3634
<INCOME-TAX>                                        1428
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 2206
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                        2206
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.25



</TABLE>
#### Patricia RUSSELL, Petitioner, v. Clifford RUSSELL, Respondent.

No. 43416.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 273 So.2d 157.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, TL, concur.
#### Gary Long DUBOIS, Appellant, v. Fred R. BLAND, Appellee.

No. 72-795.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 6, 1972.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Russell E. Seay, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00329-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 231st District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 231-691938-20

Before Birdwell, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

IN THE INTEREST OF A.P., A CHILD
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Mother appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights 

to her child on the grounds that Mother endangered the child and failed to comply 

with her court-ordered service plan.1

 See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), 

(E), (O), (b)(2). We affirm.

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders

brief stating that there are no arguable grounds for appeal. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see also In re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding that Anders procedures apply in cases 

terminating parental rights). The brief meets the Anders requirements by presenting a 

professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable 

grounds to be advanced on appeal. Further, Mother’s counsel (1) provided Mother 

with copies of the motion to withdraw and the Anders brief, (2) informed Mother of 

her rights to file a pro se response and to seek discretionary review from the supreme 

court, and (3) advised Mother of her right to access the appellate record and provided

to her a form motion for effectuating that purpose. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 

319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Mother did not file a response and the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services declined to file a brief.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the record to 

determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., 501 S.W.3d 254, 255 

1

Father also had his parental rights terminated but did not appeal the judgment.
3

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2016, pets. denied). Our examination should consider the 

record, the briefs, and any pro se response. In re L.B., No. 02-19-00407-CV, 2020 WL 

1809505, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 9, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.).

After careful review, we agree with Mother’s counsel that there are no arguable

grounds for appeal in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment terminating

Mother’s parental rights. However, we deny the motion to withdraw because 

Mother’s counsel did not show good cause other than counsel’s determination that an 

appeal would be frivolous. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27–28 (Tex. 2016); C.J., 501 

S.W.3d at 255. Thus, Mother’s counsel remains appointed in this case through any 

proceedings in the supreme court unless otherwise relieved of these duties. See In re 

P.M., 520 S.W.3d at 27.

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Delivered: February 10, 2022
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7044 

To withhold the pay of Members of the House of Representatives who cast 

a vote or record their presence in the House by proxy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 28, 2020 

Mr. BUDD (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BERGMAN, Mr. ROUZER, Mr. CURTIS, 

Mr. POSEY, Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina, and Mr. MOONEY of West 

Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To withhold the pay of Members of the House of Representatives who cast a vote or record their presence in the 

House by proxy, 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 ‘‘No Pay for Proxy Vot5 ing Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WITHHOLDING PAY OF MEMBERS WHO VOTE BY 

7 PROXY. 

8 (a) WITHHOLDING.—If on any day during a Congress 

9 a Member of the House of Representatives uses a desVerDate Sep 11 2014 19:04 Jun 18, 2020 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H7044.IH H7044

pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7044 IH

1 ignated proxy to cast a vote in the House or record the 

2 Member’s presence in the House in response to a quorum 

3 call, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Rep4 resentatives shall— 

5 (1) withhold from the payments otherwise re6 quired to be made with respect to a pay period for 

7 the compensation of the Member an amount equal to 

8 the product of— 

9 (A) an amount equal to one day’s worth of 

10 pay under the annual rate of pay applicable to 

11 the Member under section 601(a) of the Legis12 lative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 

13 4501); and 

14 (B) the number of days during the pay pe15 riod on which the Member uses a designated 

16 proxy to cast a vote in the House or record the 

17 Member’s presence in the House in response to 

18 a quorum call; and 

19 (2) deposit in an escrow account all amounts 

20 withheld under paragraph (1). 

21 (b) RELEASE OF AMOUNTS AT END OF THE CON22 GRESS.—In order to ensure that this section is carried out 

23 in a manner that shall not vary the compensation of Rep24 resentatives in violation of the twenty-seventh article of 

25 amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7044 IH

1 Chief Administrative Officer shall release for payments to 

2 Members any amounts remaining in any escrow account 

3 under this section on the last day of the Congress during 

4 which the amounts were deposited in the account. 

5 (c) ROLE OF SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.—The 

6 Secretary of the Treasury shall provide the Chief Adminis7 trative Officer with such assistance as may be necessary 

8 to enable the Chief Administrative Officer to carry out this 

9 section. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# WebJul