alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

YOUNG WOMEN’S CHRISTIAN

ASSOCIATION OF EL PASO 

DEL NORTE,

 Appellant,

v.

JEREMY JORDAN,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00302-CV

Appeal from

County Court at Law No. 3

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2014-DCV1190)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Appellant, Young Women’s Christian 

Association of El Paso Del Norte, to dismiss the appeal pursuant to TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1 because 

the dispute between the parties has been resolved. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(d).

May 15, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Leonard Ray SHARPLEY, Jr.

No. 62448.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Leonard Ray Sharpley, Jr. applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for a stay order. Parish of Natchitoches.

Writ denied.
259 La. 907

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lawrence Joseph HEBERT.

No. 51840.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1971.

In re: Lawrence Joseph Hebert applying for writ of certiorari and stay order.

Application denied. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Patsy WOLF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 14, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

BOARDMAN, Judge.

Appellant, Patsy Wolf, was charged in an information with unlawfully handling and fondling a female child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd and lascivious manner in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 800.04, F.S.A. At the arraignment hearing, with advice of counsel, Mr. Morse, assistant public defender in the *669Fifth Judicial Circuit, who ably represented appellant, appellant pled guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 3 of a six-count information. The guilty plea was entered knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily. Appellant was sentenced to the state penitentiary.

We are concerned with the sentencing. One of the points raised on this appeal relates to the trial court’s failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter 801, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., The Child Molester Act. Florida Statutes, Section 801.041, F.S.A., provides that one convicted under Florida Statutes, Section 800.04, F.S.A., is subject to the provisions of Chapter 801, supra, and, this court so held in Baker v. State, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 687, and Baker v. State, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 441.

Florida Statutes, Section 801.051, F.S.A., provides as follows:

> When a person has been convicted of an offense within the meaning of this chapter, the trial judge shall then appoint not less than two (2) nor more than three (3) qualified psychiatrists who are licensed physicians in the state and who have directed their professional practice primarily to the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders for a period of not less than five (5) years, to make a personal examination of the person so convicted. The court *shall not*proceed under the provisions of this chapter until each psychiatrist so appointed shall have filed a separate written report of the result of his examination. (Emphasis supplied).

We interpret and construe the language of the above-quoted statute as being mandatory and not discretionary as is contended by the state. Consequently, in view of the plain, clear language of Section 801.051, supra, the trial court had no alternative but to strictly follow the requirements set forth therein before imposing sentence upon the appellant. See, also, Wilson v. State, Fla.App.1973, 282 So.2d 667 (Opinion filed September 14, 1973, Second District Court of Appeal).

We have carefully reviewed the other points presented by appellant and find them to be without merit.

For the reasons stated herein we remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings and directions consistent with this opinion.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON, J„ concur.
*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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________________

No. 99-60458

Summary Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GLEN FREDERICK DIXON, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi 

(4:98-CR-ALL-WS) 

_________________________________________________________________

July 7, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Glen Frederick Dixon, Sr., appeals his jury-trial conviction

and sentence for stabbing Officer Bradley Alex with the intent to

do bodily harm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 113(a)(3).

Dixon contends the district court erred in enhancing his

sentence three levels, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3A1.2(b), for

resisting arrest. He claims the altercation did not occur during

a valid stop because the officer did not have a warrant with him

and was unsure whether there was one at the station. 

We review the sentencing court’s application of the Sentencing

Guidelines de novo and accept its fact-findings unless they are
- 2 -

clearly erroneous. United States v. Rodriguez-Guzman, 56 F.3d 18,

20 (5th Cir. 1995). Of course, we defer to its credibility

determinations. E.g., United States v. Sotelo, 97 F.3d 782, 799

(5th Cir. 1996).

At the sentencing hearing, the court noted it had heard

Officer Alex’s testimony at trial and found the offense occurred

while Dixon was resisting arrest, indicating it believed the

Officer’s testimony. Dixon has not demonstrated that this finding

was clearly erroneous.

Dixon maintains also that, prior to or during trial, the

district court should have ordered, sua sponte, a mental competency

examination pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. We review such failure

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 61 F.3d 291, 303

(1995). 

In his six-line appellate argument, Dixon alludes to testimony

concerning his substance abuse and resulting impairment to his

mental condition, mentions that his behavior at trial was erratic,

and refers to an attempted suicide. However, Dixon failed to

provide any citations to the record in support of these

contentions. For an argument to be reviewed on appeal, it must

contain citations to the part of the record relied upon. FED. R.

APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Because it is not adequately briefed, the

issue is considered waived. See United States v. Gourley, 168 F.3d

165, 172-73 n.11, cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 72 (1999). And, because

the suicide attempt, and resulting mental examination, occurred

after trial, the district court could not have relied on it as
- 3 -

justification for questioning Dixon’s competency to earlier stand

trial.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7439

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GERALD JERMAINE DANIELS, a/k/a V,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District 

Judge. (4:05-cr-00033-MSD-TEM-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Jermaine Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward 

Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Gerald Jermaine Daniels appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence 

reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Daniels, No. 4:05-cr-00033-

MSD-TEM-1 (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 28, 2015 & entered Aug. 31, 

2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2011302EN.01000101.xml

| 13.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6230 — Solvay/Rhodia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2011/C 302/01

On 5 August 2011, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6230. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32011M6230. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
Exhibit 23.2 - Consent of Independent Accountants


   We  consent  to  the incorporation by  reference  in  the
Registration Statement of Congoleum Corporation on Form  S-8
(File No. 33-97220) of our report dated February 20, 1996 on
our   audits  of  the  financial  statements  and  financial
statement  schedule of Congoleum Corporation as of  December
31, 1995 and for the years ended December 31, 1995 and 1994,
which report is included as Exhibit 23.3 in this Form 10-K.




/S/COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
---------------------------
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 14, 1997
#### COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Jose A. DIAZ et al., Appellees.

No. 74-275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,593,636
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  311,205
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,525
<INVENTORY>                                    437,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,208,903
<PP&E>                                      37,843,733
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,798,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              38,063,894
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,321,365
<BONDS>                                      7,835,348
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    24,016,532
<OTHER-SE>                                     960,233
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                38,063,894
<SALES>                                     41,634,802
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            41,634,802
<CGS>                                       12,817,241
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,817,241
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            27,321,864
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             456,308
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                991,692
<INCOME-TAX>                                   327,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            664,392
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   664,392
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05
        

</TABLE>
No. 11222.

#### Brinkman et al. *v.*Jump.

Decided November 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit Court of Crawford county.’

*Messrs. Finley & Gallinger,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Mr. W. C. McCullough*and *Mr. R, V. Sears,*for defendant in error.

Judgment .vacated and cause remanded to the circuit court with instructions to consider the bill of exceptions.

Spear, Davis, Shauck and Price, JJ., concur.
Table 5.  Homeownership Rates for the United States:  

           First   Second    Third   Fourth
   Year   Quarter  Quarter  Quarter  Quarter

1998.....    65.9
1997.....    65.4     65.7     66.0     65.7
1996.....    65.1     65.4     65.6     65.4
1995.....    64.2     64.7     65.0     65.1
1994.....    63.8     63.8     64.1     64.2
1993\r...    63.7     63.9     64.2     64.2

1993.....    64.2     64.4     64.7     64.6
1992.....    64.0     63.9     64.3     64.4
1991.....    63.9     63.9     64.2     64.2
1990.....    64.0     63.7     64.0     64.1
1989\r...    63.9     63.8     64.1     63.8

1989.....    63.9     63.9     64.0     63.8
1988.....    63.7     63.7     64.0     63.8
1987.....    63.8     63.8     64.2     64.1
1986.....    63.6     63.8     63.8     63.9
1985.....    64.1     64.1     63.9     63.5
1984.....    64.6     64.6     64.6     64.1
1983.....    64.7     64.7     64.8     64.4
1982.....    64.8     64.9     64.9     64.5
1981.....    65.6     65.3     65.6     65.2
1980.....    65.5     65.5     65.8     65.5
1979\r...    64.8     64.9     65.8     65.4

1979.....    65.3     65.1     66.0     65.8
1978.....    64.8     64.4     65.2     65.4
1977.....    64.8     64.5     65.0     64.9
1976.....    64.6     64.6     64.9     64.8
1975.....    64.4     64.9     64.6     64.5
1974.....    64.8     64.8     64.6     64.4
1973.....    64.9     64.4     64.4     64.4
1972.....    64.3     64.5     64.3     64.4
1971.....    64.0     64.1     64.4     64.5
1970.....    64.3     64.0     64.4     64.0
1969.....    64.1     64.4     64.4     64.4
1968.....    63.6     64.1     64.1     63.6
1967.....    63.3     63.9     63.8     63.5
1966.....    63.5     63.2     63.3     63.8
1965.....    62.9     62.9     62.9     63.4

\r Revised.
#### OHIO REALTY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, etc., Appellant, v. Carl G. PARKER et al., Appellees.

No. 70-141.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 23, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
pertaining to the Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation 1996 Stock Incentive Plan,
as amended (Form S-8 No. 33-10299) and pertaining to various stock option plans
of Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation (Form S-8 No. 33-12331) of our report dated
March 29, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of Paracelsus Healthcare Corporation included in the Annual Report
(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Houston, Texas
March 30, 2000
1 

### P e r ez, I d a lia

Fr o m: V a nd e r s p ek

, S y l v i a@ ARB < S y l v i a

. V a nd e r s p ek@a r b

. ca .g ov> S e nt: F rid ay , J ul y 31

, 2015 1 : 42 PM To: Pe r e z , Id a lia C c: W hitn e y , Da ni e l @ ARB ; H o ng, J ea nh ee ; St ecke l, A ndr e w; Sut k u s , Ca r o l @ ARB ; L o , D o ri s ; Ro wl a nd, S c o tt @ ARB ; S a l a rdin o , Da v id @ ARB ; T h o m p s o n, D o ugl as@ ARB ; L o w e r y , N e v a@ ARB S u b j ec t: R E: r e f e r e n ce f o r Mo y er

Id alia
F o r t h e p r o j e c t s lis te d i n t h e In c e n t i v e s M e as u r e R e p o r t , t h e c h a ng e s t o t h e 2 0 1 1 M o ye r gu i d e li n e s we r e a d m i n is t ra t i v e i n n a t u r e a nd i n cr e a s e d p r o j e c t e li g i b ili t y a nd t h e c o s t e ff e c t i v e n e s s li m i t

. T h e c h a ng e s d i d n o t i m p a c t a n y o f t h e

e m iss i o n r e du c t i o n s s p e cif i e d i n t h e In c e n t i v e s Me as u r e R e p o r t

. T h e c h a ng e s al s o d i d n o t i m p ac t t h e e m i s s i o n fac t o r s

ass o ci a te d w i t h t h e p r o j e c t. S y l v ia
#### Herman SELINSKY, Appellant, v. Paula SELINSKY, Appellee.

Nos. 72-708, 72-709.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 27, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1.1  CERTIFICATIONS  CON EDISON - Principal Executive Officer  I, Eugene R. McGrath, the principal executive officer of Consolidated
Edison, Inc., certify that:  1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended  December 31, 2003 of
Consolidated Edison, Inc.;  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 registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant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, or caused 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 conclusions about 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 the
registrant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 over financial
reporting; and  5. The registrant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 and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, 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: February 24, 2004/s/ Eugene
  R. McGrathEugene R. McGrathChairman, President and Chief
  Executive Officer
#### Nancy ACOSTA, Appellant, v. Antonio ACOSTA, Appellee.

No. 72-1471.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 28, 1973.

Carl L. Laks, Miami, for appellant.

Antonio Acosta, in pro. per.

Before PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Sr., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks reversal of a post-judgment order relating to child support. The record on appeal has been carefully considered. The appellant, having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.
U.S. 

### DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF: COASTAL AIR TRANSPORT, INC. Respondent. FAADocketNo. FAA-2011-1005 Judge J.E. Sullivan FAA CASENO. 2010S0700037



### COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF ORAL ARGUMENT

The Complainant, by and·through the undersigned attorney, hereby files its Motion for Continuance of the Oral Argument in the above captioned proceeding in accordance with 14 C.F.R. §13.218, The Rules ofPractice in FAA Civil Penalty Actions. In support thereof, the Agency states the following: On October 23, 2012, the ALJ served its Order Granting Brief Continuance of Oral Argument and Granting/Denying Other Relief. In the Order the Oral Agrument in the above matter was rescheduleduntil November 19,,2012 at 1:30-3:00pm EST. On Monday, November 12, 2012, the undersigned Complainant Counsel is scheduled to have surgery which will require medical leave from the office. As a result, Counsel's anticipated return date is scheduled for November26, 2012. The Complainant submits that postponing the Oral Argument will not result in any prejudice to the Respondent.WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, the Complainant requests the Motion for Continuance be granted.
Re'spectfully submittedthis 9thday ofNovember2012.

Attorney Office ofthe Regional CounselCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Complainant's Motion for Continuance of Oral Argument was mailedby Federal Express and facsimile to: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan DOT, Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. East Building Ground Floor Room E12-320 Washington, D.C. 20590 (FAX) (202) 366-7536 and viaExpress Mail to: Michael Foster, President Coastal AirTransport, Inc. P.O. Box 3985 Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00822 andthe original and one copy viaFederal Express to: Hearing Docket U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

# ~T!~o~ Legal Assistant 

### NOV 

### 9 2012 Dated



# .............._________________________ j ,1·