alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-50435

Summary Calendar

 

URSULA GOMEZ; RUDY GOMEZ,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

NORTH AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC.; NORTH

AMERICAN VAN LINES OF TEXAS, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CV-295-F

- - - - - - - - - -

May 5, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ursula Gomez and Rudy Gomez appeal the district court’s

grant of summary judgment and final judgment to North American

Van Lines, Inc. and North American Van Lines of Texas, Inc.

(herein after referred to collectively as NAVL). The Gomezes

sued NAVL for damages relating to a shipment of their personal

property from Germany to Texas. The district court based its 
No. 98-50435 

-2-

decision to grant summary judgment to NAVL on the finding that

the parties had entered into a settlement agreement and an accord

and satisfaction resolving the Gomezes’ claims. 

In their appellate briefs, the only pertinent argument the

Gomezes raise is whether any agreement they made with NAVL should

be nullified because the insurance policy they received as part

of the settlement was worthless and was fraudulently obtained by

NAVL. There is no record evidence to support this argument. The

Gomezes’ remaining arguments are waived for inadequate briefing

or failure to raise the issue before the district court. See

FED. R. APP. P. 28(a); Yohey v. Collins, 978 F.2d 222, 224-25

(5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED as

frivolous. 

NAVL’s request for fees and costs was not made by separate

motion in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 38 and is DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-19-00132-CR

Victor Hernandez

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR-4156-17-A

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 20, 2021
Calendar No. 410

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3693

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under

White United States Courthouse’’.construction in Denver, Colorado, as the ‘‘Byron

APRIL 13 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar
IIA

Calendar No. 410

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3693

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 13 (legislative day, APRIL 11), 1994

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse under construction in Denver, Colorado, as the ‘‘Byron White United

States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse being constructed

5 through renovation of the old post office building in Den6 ver, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the

7 ‘‘Byron White United States Courthouse’’.

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

9 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

10 paper, or other record of the United States to the court-
2

•HR 3693 PCS

1 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref2 erence to the ‘‘Byron White United States Courthouse’’.

Passed the House of Representatives April 12, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
# C_2014250EN.01001501.xml

| 1.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/15

---

STATE AID — GERMANY

State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 250/08

On 9 April 2014, the Commission adopted the EU Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 (1). These guidelines enter into force on 1 July 2014. According to point 248 of these guidelines the Commission will assess the compatibility of any possible unlawful aid in the form of reductions in funding support for energy from renewable sources in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 of the same guidelines.

1

In the light of the entry into force of the EU Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020, Member States and interested parties may submit their comments on the measures in respect of which the Commission has initiated the above mentioned pending formal investigation within 20 working days from the date of publication of this notice to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Greffe |
| Office: Madou 12/59 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

Office: Madou 12/59

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Interested parties comments will be communicated to the Member State concerned. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing when submitting the comments, stating the reasons for the request. In that case a non-confidential version of the submission should be submitted together with the confidential submission.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 28.6.2014, p. 1.

1

---
The State of 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

No. 04-12-00739-CR

Jose Guadalupe MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Real County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-1132-DR

The Honorable Camile G. Dubose, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice (not participating)

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The court issued its opinion in this appeal on October 29, 2014. Appellant’s 

motion for rehearing was therefore due November 13, 2014. The court granted appellant 

three extensions of time to file a motion for rehearing. Our final order required any 

motion for rehearing be filed by January 16, 2015, and advised appellant that “[n]o 

further extensions of time will be granted.” No motion for rehearing was timely filed.

However, on January 26, 2015, appellant filed a “Petition for Rehearing,” a “Motion for 

Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Out-of-Time,” and a “Motion for Leave to File 

Oversized Petition for Rehearing.” 

We deny the motion for leave to file a late motion for rehearing. We deny the 

motion for rehearing as untimely filed. We deny the motion for leave to exceed the word 

limit for a motion for rehearing as moot.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2014-0771 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2014-CE-006-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# C_2015214EN.01000401.xml

| 30.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 214/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 214/4

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2015/C 214/04)

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

1

2

On page 53, the following paragraph is inserted after the existing text under ‘General’:

On page 53, the following paragraph is inserted after the existing text under ‘General’:

‘Pasteurisation is not admissible in this Chapter, with the exception of:

| — | dried fruits and nuts of this Chapter; |
| --- | --- |

—

dried fruits and nuts of this Chapter;

| — | provisionally preserved fruits and nuts of heading 0812; |
| --- | --- |

—

provisionally preserved fruits and nuts of heading 0812;

| — | frozen fruits and nuts of heading 0811. |
| --- | --- |

—

frozen fruits and nuts of heading 0811.

Sterilised fruits and nuts are excluded from this Chapter (heading 2008 in general).’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 76, 4.3.2015, p. 1.

2

---
STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

4. All references to September 1,2008 with respect to the submission of Future

Compliance Reports are hereby replaced with September 1,2009.

3. Any references to May 31, 2007 and May 31, 2008 with respect to calculation and

retirement of non-ozone season DERCs shall now include May 31, 2009 and May 31,

2010.

2. Any references to October 1

st with respect to the date by which the Respondents shall

estimate and acquire Discrete Emission Reduction Credits (DERCS) and/or allowances

for the non-ozone season shall now include October 1,2009.

Trading Agreement and Order 8120A

Modification No.2

)

)

)

)

)

1. All references to May I, 2009 with respect to the authorization to use emissions

reduction credit trading and/or emission reduction credits and NOx allowances to

comply with the emissions limits of Subsections 22a-174-22(d)( I) through 22a-174-

22(d)(2)(A) ofthe Regulations ofConnecticut State Agencies ("Regulations") are

hereby replaced with May I, 20 IO.

5. No later than May 1,2010, with respect to the emission units identified in Trading

Agreement and Order 8120A and/or its subsequent modifications, the Respondent shall

comply with the requirements of Sections 22a-174-22(d)(I) and 22a-174-22(d)(2)(A) of

the Regulations.

Whereas, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection ("Commissioner") and Sikorsky Aircraft

Corporation ("Respondent") having agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in Trading

Agreement and Order 8120A and all previous modification thereto, do now, by mutual agreement,

further modify said modified Trading Agreement and Order as follows:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

In the matter of

The State ofConnecticut and

6. All other terms and conditions of Trading Agreement and Order 8120A, as modified,

shall remain in effect.

( Printed on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Street • Hartford. CT 06106 - 5127

http://www.ct.gov/dep

All Equal OpportuniTy Employer
Title:

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation 2 Trading Agreement and Order 8120A

Modification No.2

The Respondent hereby consents to the entry ofthis modification to the Trading Agreement

and Order without further notice.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

Signature: _~~~~~~~~~==:::~__ Name: ----,-f\II-'-'.i",-,et",-----,-M.....:.=llu=(I{J--'-.r-=------ _

\j ice t1e~ - O?Rd~)

Date: __1-(-'.'_20---,-('Z_IJ_Il-,~,----- _

Issued as a modification of a Trading Agreement and Order.

Gar 0

.k

Director

Engineering and Enforcement Division

Bureau of Air Management

.- J
# C_2014336EN.01002101.xml

| 26.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/21

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

(2014/C 336/06)

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 28.8.2014 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 28.8.2014-31.12.2014 |
| Member State | Ireland |
| Stock or Group of stocks | GHL/2A-C46 |
| Species | Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides) |
| Zone | Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters of Vb and VI |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 32/TQ43 |

Date and time of closure

28.8.2014

Duration

28.8.2014-31.12.2014

Member State

Ireland

Stock or Group of stocks

GHL/2A-C46

Species

Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides)

Reinhardtius hippoglossoides

Zone

Union waters of IIa and IV; Union and international waters of Vb and VI

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

32/TQ43

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
IIA

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3724

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 25 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar

AN ACT

To designate the United States courthouse located in Bridgeport, Connecticut, as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal

Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

4 The United States courthouse located at 915 Lafay5 ette Boulevard in Bridgeport, Connecticut, shall be known

6 and designated as the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Build7 ing’’.
2

HR 3724 RFS

1 SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

2 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document,

3 paper, or other record of the United States to the court4 house referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a ref5 erence to the ‘‘Brien McMahon Federal Building’’.

Passed the House of Representatives May 23, 1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
#### Clarence PATRICK, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 72-1020.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 5, 1972.

Habeas corpus denied.
Date: Time: Location: Preflight Checklist 1.) A complete pre - flight systematic check by the PIC of the Phantom’s physical condition, i.e. props, prop guards, landing gear, position indicator lights, battery capacity and overall airframe condition. If any of the above are not within the manufacturers minimum standards no flight will take place until such time as the issue(s) is repaired to manufacturers standards. 2.) Written documentation of each physical inspection and repairs if any, by the PIC (pilot in command) will be kept with the Phantom and will be on - site and available for review. 3.) Software in relation to the Phantom’s operation will be checked for proper function. The most current DJI APP and the current firmware will be installed to assure the most up to date safe ty features. 4.) Prior to every flight, the compass on the Phantom 3 Professional will be calibrated as to ensure precision location. 5.) John Desmedt will ensure the altimeter setting on the Phantom 3 Professional is that of AGL (above ground level) rather than GPS or barometric pressure derived settings. 6.) Every safety feature offered through the DJI APP will be enabled for every flight, every time. Additions to the checklist as deemed warranted by the PIC and the Observer/Spotter as warranted by the flight, ar ea, weather conditions etc.

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________ ________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2131
In Re: LORENZA PORTER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:95-cr-00080-RLW) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 25, 2008 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenza Porter, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Lorenza Porter petitions for a writ of mandamus for an order re-sentencing him with respect to his 1996 conviction for conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and heroine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He also challenges our decision in United States v. Bowens , 224 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2002), and apparently seeks an order overturning it. We conclude that Porter is not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re United Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). The relief sought by Porter is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. Isaac WASHINGTON, Relator. v. Jack O. SANDSTROM, Director Corrections and Rehabilitation Department, Respondent.

No. 73-236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 8, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Habeas corpus dismissed.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-50457

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BERNARDO MCGUIRE,

Defendant-Appellant.

______________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

(EP-96-CA-203)

______________________________________________

December 20, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

IT IS ORDERED that (#56903-080) Bernardo McGuire’s motion for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is DENIED, because his

appeal lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court
1McGuire’s motion for certificate of appealability is

DISMISSED as unnecessary, and his “motion for judgment” is

DENIED.

2

did not err by holding that McGuire cannot attack a final judgment

of property forfeiture via a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate

sentence.1 Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

that the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
#### MAI EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BROOKE, MAYO & DERRICK, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11846.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

May 23, 1972.

En Bane. Rehearing Denied June 27, 1972.

*420Coen & Pliner, by Eugene J. Coen, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.

James B. Wells, Bossier City, Boden-heimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons, by J. W. Jones, Shreveport, for defendant-appellee.

Before AYRES, BOLIN and HEARD, JJ-

HEARD, Judge.

This is an action for rent due under a written lease contract.

David Tucker, sales representative of the lessor, MAI Equipment Corporation, contacted Ray C. Mayo concerning the leasing of certain computer equipment. At this time, Mayo was a partner in the certified public accounting firm of Brooke, Mayo & Derrick and also president of a new corporation, Computer Services, Inc. Mayo signed a lease contract with MAI which he claims was blank at the time he signed it. Nevertheless, the name of the lessee under the contract was Brooke, Mayo & Derrick, by Ray C. Mayo, Partner.

The rental equipment was delivered either to Brooke, Mayo & Derrick or Computer Services. Billing was to Brooke, Mayo & Derrick. Payment was by Computer Services’ checks. Payment of the rental ceased, and MAI sued Brooke, Mayo & Derrick to recover $4,150.05 which was alleged to be the amount of rental past due.

Judgment was rendered rejecting MAI’s demand, and MAI perfected a devolutive appeal.

MAI asserts the judgment should be reversed because the trial judge failed to file written reasons for his judgment despite oral and written request to do so.

> “The contention of counsel for plaintiff that we should consider the trial judge’s refusal to grant his request for written reasons for the judgment is without merit. Under Article 7, § 43, Constitution of 1921, such a request is authorized. However, upon the refusal of counsel’s request there was available to him at the time an adequate remedy for compelling the trial judge to furnish written reasons. Binks Mfg. Co. v. Guillot, 223 La. 337, 65 So.2d 787.”

> [Brock v. Security Insurance Co., 205 So.2d 892, 893, La.App. 4th Cir. 1968]

The remedy for a refusal to file written reasons after proper request is to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal with an application for a writ of mandamus. LSA-Const. Art. 7 § 29; Rule XII, Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal. The remedy is not a reversal of the judgment.

MAI asserts that parol evidence should not have been admitted for the purpose of showing that Tucker knew Computer Services was the true lessee. We need not consider argument on the parol evidence rule in light of our conclusion that MAI has failed to carry their burden of proof in this case. The record in this case is woefully inconclusive on the issues of delivery of the equipment, amount of rent owed, amount of rent paid, and billing procedures. MAI simply did not show that Brooke, Mayo & Derrick owed them any*421thing, and for this reason we hold the trial judge made no error in rejecting MAI’s demand.

For the reasons stated, the judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs borne by MAI Equipment Corporation.