alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13 - 18 - 00252 - CV
COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRIST I - EDINBURG

THOMAS J. GESSWEIN , Appellant,

v. SHARON L. GESSWEIN , A ppellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 6

of Hidalgo County, Texas.



## ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides Order Per Curiam This cause is before the Court on consideration of appellant Thomas J. Gesswein’s Amended Motion to Stay Trial. By his motion, Thomas asks the Court to stay proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of his interlocutory appeal. On interlocutory appeal, Thomas challenges the denial of his special appearance in the lawsuit filed by his former spouse Sharon L. Gesswein. The Civil Practice and2

Remedies Code provides for an appeal from an interlocutory order which “grants or denies the special appear ance of a defendant under Rule 120a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, except in a suit brought under the Family Code . . . .” T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(a)(7) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). An interlocutory appeal under this sectio n automatically stays the commencement of a trial pending resolution of the appeal

. See id. § 51.014(b). “[T]he stay set forth in section 51.014 is statutory and allows no room for discretion.” In re Univ. of Incarnate
Word , 469 S.W.3d 255, 259 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2015, orig. proceeding). The automatic stay is only available, however, when the s p e c i a l a p p e a r a n c e was filed, and a hearing requested, within a defined timeframe. S e e I n re Tex. Dep’t of Transp. , 510 S.W.3d 701, 705 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2016, orig. proceeding ) . To trigger the automatic stay, the special appearance must have been filed and a hearing requested no later than the date set in a scheduling order, if any, or 180 days after the defendant’s first responsive pleading. T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(c); Incarnate
Word , 469 S.W.3d at 258. The record reveals that Thomas’s special appearance was filed within the required
180

- day window: there was no scheduling order; Thomas filed his special appearance on January 16, 2018; and the hearing on the special appearance took place on April 12,
201 8, well within 180 days of his special appearance. Because Thomas timely filed and requested a hearing on his special appearance, his interlocutory appeal automatically triggered a stay of any trial in the county court. See Incarnate Word , 469 S.W.3d at 258.3

This Court, having fully examined and considered Thomas’s motion, believes it should be granted with an order recognizing the automatic stay. Accordingly, Thomas’s motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that commencement of a trial in the county court be stayed.

PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the 22nd day of June , 201 8

.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 133/2006

of 26 January 2006         

amending Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87 of 10 December 1987 laying down the general rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks to designated organisations for distribution to the most deprived persons in the Community (1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 January 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 352, 15.12.1987, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2535/95 (OJ L 260, 31.10.1995, p. 3).

(2)OJ L 313, 30.10.1992, p. 50. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1608/2005 (OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 13).

(3)OJ L 293, 9.11.2005, p. 3.

(4)OJ L 328, 30.10.2004, p. 77.

----
August 14, 2015

Mr. Michael Cocquyt

Owner

Functional Fitness

12 Tallwood Drive

Hilton, NY 14468

Dear Mr. Cocquyt:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and part 21of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your May 13, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Functional Fitness into the 

public docket (No. FAA−2015−1960), but we are unable to process your request any further. 

The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3
----

            COUNCIL DECISION         

of 12 December 2005         

determining the order in which the office of President of the Council shall be held

(2005/902/EC, Euratom)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 203 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 116 thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Articles 28(1) and 41(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

1.   The order in which the Member States shall hold the Presidency of the Council from 1 January 2006 is set out in the Annex hereto.

2.   The Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Member States concerned, may decide that a Member State may hold the Presidency during a period other than that resulting from the order established in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Decision shall take effect on 1 January 2006.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 12 December 2005.

For the Council

The President

J. STRAW            

----

(1)OJ L 1, 1.1.1995, p. 220. Decision as amended by Decision 2002/105/EC, ECSC, Euratom (OJ L 39, 9.2.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7157

LEON PARRISH MARSHALL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00515-RBS)

Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 18, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Parrish Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leon Parrish Marshall seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of David Hand, as Executor of Jacob Rosenberg, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Kings County,

November 26, 1958.

*435*Hand & Hand*for David Hand, petitioner.

*Bachrach $ Bisgyer*for Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital.

*OusiJc <& BouJcstein*for Creta Turvie, as Vice Consul of Israel for Girls Orphan Home of Jerusalem.

*Lillian*Rosenberg, respondent in person.

Maximilian Moss, S.

It appears from this executor’s account that testator’s widow has elected to take her intestate share against the will. None of the parties has controverted the validity of her notice of election. The will gives her a legacy of $5,000 chargeable on a one-half interest in a parcel of real property of the testator, and the residuary estate to two named charitable institutions. Testator was survived by his widow but left no descendants, no adopted children and no descendants of adopted children. Schedule F of the account shows that the executor proposes to distribute the net estate by allowing the widow the first $10,000 thereof and one half of the residue, evidently applying the provisions of subdivision *4 of*section 83 of the Decedent Estate Law. However, this case is controlled by section 18 (subd. 1, par. [a]) of the Decedent Estate Law and distribution shall be made accordingly. The section provides as follows: “In exercising the right of election herein granted a surviving spouse shall in no event be entitled to take more than one-half of the net estate of the decedent, after the deduction of debts, funeral and administration expenses ”. In computing the widow’s share of one half, the amount found to be due her shall include her $5,000 legacy under the will.

The compensation of the attorneys for the executor is fixed and allowed in the sum of $1,000 and the disbursements incurred are allowed in the amount requested.

Settle decree on notice.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1



                         THE SANTA CRUZ OPERATION, INC.
                           (A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION)


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                          PLACE OF INCORPORATION
<S>                                                         <C>
The Santa Cruz Operation Pty. Limited                            Australia
SCO do Brasil Ltda.                                              Brazil
SCO Canada, Company                                              Canada
The Santa Cruz Operation (France) SARL                           France
The Santa Cruz Operation (Deutschland) GmbH                      Germany
The Santa Cruz Operation (Italia) Srl                            Italy
SCO, Kabushiki Kaisha                                            Japan
Nihon SCO Limited                                                Japan
The Santa Cruz Operation de Mexico, S. DE R.L. DE C.V.           Mexico
The Santa Cruz Operation Limited                                 UK
The Santa Cruz Operation (Asia) Ltd.                             Delaware
The Santa Cruz Operation Latin America, Inc.                     Delaware
SCO Foreign Sales Corporation                                    U.S. Virgin Islands
</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-4323

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JOVANI ZAMORA, a/k/a Jovani Martinez Zamora, a/k/a Jovani Betancourt Zamora, a/k/a Jovani Martinez, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CR-02-66) Submitted: May 14, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kyle William King, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Jovani Martinez Zamora seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, the district court may grant an extension of time to file of up to thirty days upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes , 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 1985). The district court entered its judgment on March 13, 2003; the ten-day appeal period expired on March 27, 2003. Zamora filed his notice of appeal on April 3, 2003, after the ten-day period expired but within the thirty-day excusable neglect period. Because the notice of appeal was filed within the excusable neglect period, we remand the case to the district court for the court to determine whether Zamora has shown excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of the ten-day appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

REMANDED
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000850083
<NAME>                        Toucan Gold Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1.00
<CASH>                        83,973
<SECURITIES>                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                  0
<INVENTORY>                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              131,817
<PP&E>                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,691,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         100,436
<BONDS>                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>         0
<PREFERRED>                   0
<COMMON>                      82,379
<OTHER-SE>                    2,508,871
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,691,686
<SALES>                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              0
<CGS>                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              834,351
<LOSS-PROVISION>              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>            25,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>               0
<INCOME-TAX>                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           0
<DISCONTINUED>                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>               0
<CHANGES>                     0
<NET-INCOME>                  (858,302)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                 (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                 0
        


</TABLE>
### s HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS

March 27 , 2014
Marilyn B. Tavenner Administrator Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hubert H . Humphrey Building 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 445-G Washington, D . C. 20201 See the Difference .



### RE : CMS-1599-IFC2 , Medica r e Program ; E xtension o-f the . Pa ymen t Ad j us tmen t fo r Low-Vol u m e Hospitals and ·the

### Me**dicare De** **endent** Hospital_ Prog r:a m U nde r th e Hos pita l · I np at ient**~rospect ve**  Payment**Syste m~**  (IPPS) for Acute Care Hospita ls :f or Fisc a) Ye ar: 2 014



## .. . ..

...**·~** .. Dear Ms . Tavenner : 

### ·. ·, 

# . , 

# .. On behalf of Gonzales Healthcare Systems, a tax - based hospital district located i n rura l south centra l Texas , we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ' s ( CMS) inter i m f i nal rule i mplementing a six-month extension of both the low--volume payment Adjustment and the Medicare-dependent hospital (MDH) program , as required by the Pathway for SGR Reform Act of 2013 . We appreciate CMS ' s implementation of t h e extension for**th~se** critical programs , which will help ensure rural and low-volume hospitals are able to remain viable under the Medicare program. However, we are concerned that the rule does not allow a sufficient and reasonable time period for hospitals to submit the documentation necessary to qualify for the low-volume payment adjustment during this six-month period. Specifically , CMS indicated that a hosp i tal that previous qualified for the low volume adjustment in f i scal year (FY) 2013 must send written verification that it continues to be located more than 15 miles from any other subsection (d) hospital to its Medicare Administrat ive Col}tractor no later t han March 31. A hospital that did not receive the low-volume adjustmen t i n FY 2013 , but that wishes to apply for this status now, also must request low-volume hospita l s tatus by March**1** •.**Howe~er ,**  give!') that 

### G:r-t.? i ssued the rute on March . 14, this MC!rch 31 d e adline prov ides hospitals witjl . only 17

_ days !**no~ic~** to qualify for this progral]l. We - u r. ge Gty.'IS to**tend** thiS "dea Ciline1:o · allow hospitals a m i nimum of thirty (30 ). day

_ s to ·submit the do c umentation .necessary t o q u ali fv fo r t h e .. low-vo lume payment adjustment .

D p T 8 9 0 672-7581 Fax 830 672-2401Ms. Marilyn B. Tavenner March 

### 27, 2014 Page 2 of 2
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment; we look forward to receiving CMS's forthcoming program guidance w ith more specific deta i ls on the systems implementation of these provisions . If you have any questions , please feel free to contact me at (830) 672-7581 , Extension 203 or cnorris@gonzaleshealthcare.com
. Sincerely,

Chuck Norris Chief Executive Officer CN/jkl
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (1.02 MB)

Tags:Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
EXHIBIT 23.2

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8) pertaining to the 1998 Stock Incentive Compensation Plan, the Amended
and Restated 1989 Stock Option Plan, and the 401(K) Retirement Plan for
Cost-U-Less, Inc., of our report dated February 23, 2001, except as to the
information included under the caption "Restatement of Financial Information" in
Note 1, as to which the date is March 29, 2002, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of Cost-U-Less, Inc. included in its Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2001, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 29, 2002