alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF LARIMER, and Richard D. Lamm, Governor of the State of Colorado, State of Colorado, and State of Colorado Department of Health, Petitioners, v. Grace SRB, Individually and as administratrix of personal representative of the Estate of Hugo F. Srb, Respondent.

No. 79 SC 277.

Supreme Court of Colorado.

May 14, 1980.

Fischer & Wilmarth, Elery Wilmarth, Steven G. Francis, Harden, Napheys, Schmidt & Hass, George H. Hass, Fort Collins, for petitioners.

Vicki J. Fowler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent.

Upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice, the Motion to Dismiss Appeal as Abstract or Moot, and the Motion to Dismiss Appeal for Lack of Case or Controversy filed herein, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,

It Is This Day Ordered that said Motions to Dismiss shall be, and the same hereby are, Denied,

It Is Further Ordered that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari previously granted shall be, and the same hereby is, Denied as improvidently granted.
SERVED: JANUARY 3, 2011 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

CENOGENICS CORPORATION 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10EA0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2010-0786 

•PARTMENTOF 

v^!3P0RWI0N 

'HOpFRATtONS 

^,N --U A ^O b 

ORDER OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

DISMISSING PROCEEDING WITH PREJUDICE 

By letter, dated December 20, 2010, the parties state that they "have reached a settlement" in this matter, that Respondent "withdraws its request for hearing," and that Complainant 

"withdraws its complaint."' Accordingly, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, this proceeding is 

dismissed with prejudice. 

The FAA shall send the Judge and the Docket a copy of any compromise order or final 

order assessing civil penalty. 

SO ORDERED. 

Ronnie A 

Chief Administrativ; 

Attachment: Service List 

' The letter, received via facsimile by the Judge on December 20, 2010, is not accompanied by a Certificate 

of Service, but is signed by counsel for both parties and bears the notation "Via Facsimile," followed by the address 

of the Judge and the former address of the Hearing Docket Clerk. Although a copy of the letter, received by DOT 

Dockets on December 29, 2010, was subsequently posted to the Federal Docket Management System, the rules require filing by personal delivery or mailing "to the appropriate address." 14 C.F.R. § 13.210(a). Parties must ensure 

that all submissions are properly filed with the Hearing Docket Clerk and serve a copy, with certificate of service, on 

the Judge. 
FAA Docket No. CP10EA0007 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, i^GC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building - Suite 2W1000^ 

ONE COPY 

John P. Beyel, Respondent's Counsel 

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP 

Attorneys at Law 

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue 

P.O. Box 2075 

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

TEL: 973-993-8100 

FAX: 973-425-0161 

Jeanine C. Gotimer, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel, EAL-7 

Eastern Region 

Federal Aviation Administration 

1 Aviation Plaza 

Jamaica, NY 11434 

TEL: 718-553-3272 

FAX: 718-995-5699 

The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder, Chief Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20, Room El 2-320 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2142 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

^ Service was by U.S. Mail. For service ii^ person wbj^ expedited cpurier, me the fpUp' 

eral Aviation Adininistration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.,W)itt>ur Wii^t Building - Sirite t 

ton, DC 20591, Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC430. 

^dress: Fed-

, Washing-,
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00024-CR

GREGORY G. TOBIAS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 208th District Court of Harris County.

(Tr. Ct. No. 1392449).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on November 19, 2013. After inspecting the record of the court below, the 

Court holds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, the 

Court dismisses the appeal.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered March 17, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Higley, and 

Huddle.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of JER Investors
Trust Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Joseph E. Robert, Jr., as Chief Executive Officer of the Company
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                      |  |  |  |                                                         
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Joseph E. Robert, Jr.                               
|                      |  |  |  | Name: Joseph E. Robert, Jr.                             
|                      |  |  |  | Title: Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board
Affirm and Opinion Filed April 6, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01102-CR

MARIAN BERNARD ZIOLKOWSKI, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-80990-1997

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Evans, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Evans

Marian Bernard Ziolkowski was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated. See TEX.

PENAL CODE ANN. § 49.09(b)(2) (West 2014). Punishment, following the revocation of his 

community supervision, was assessed at two years’ imprisonment.1 The judgment revoking 

community supervision reflects appellant represented himself.2 Additionally, this Court adopted 

the trial court’s findings that appellant neither filed an affidavit of indigence nor requested 

appointment of appellate counsel. Because appellant neither requested nor paid for the reporter’s 

record, we ordered the appeal submitted without that record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). We 

 1 Appellant’s original community supervision was imposed on June 25, 1998. Several motions to revoke appellant’s community 

supervision were filed, and the trial court continued appellant on supervision, modifying his conditions. The motion on which his supervision 

was revoked was filed on May 21, 2008, and the warrant was issued on May 28, 2008, both within the ten-year supervision period. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. P. ANN. art. 42.12, § 21(e) (West Supp. 2014); Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

2 The clerk’s record contains appellant’s appeal bond. 
–2–

ordered appellate to file his brief by February 17, 2015. When appellant did not file his brief by 

March 12, 2015, we ordered him to file his brief by March 25, 2015, and warned that failure to 

do so would result in submission of the appeal without briefs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b); Lott 

v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Appellant has not filed a brief, nor has he

communicated with the Court regarding the appeal. 

Absent briefs, no issues are before us. Finding no fundamental error, we affirm the trial 

court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

141102F.U05

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

MARIAN BERNARD ZIOLKOWSKI, 

Appellant

No. 05-14-01102-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 199-80990-1997.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans, Justices 

Myers and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.

Judgment entered this 6th day of April, 2015.
# LPF

# DGO

# Veg

# Fruit & Nut
No. 99-20557

-1-

 

* 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. 99-20557

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARGARITA PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-98-CR-386-1

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Government appeals the sentence imposed on Margarita

Perez after her guilty-plea conviction for aiding and abetting 

possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. The Government

argues that the district court clearly erred in determining that

Perez was not reasonably capable of producing the negotiated

eight kilograms of cocaine. Because the district court’s

determination that Perez was not reasonably capable of producing 

the negotiated eight kilograms of cocaine was plausible in light

of the record as a whole, the district court did not clearly err
No. 99-20557

-2-

in determining that Perez should not be held responsible for

eight kilograms of cocaine. See United States v. Vine, 62 F.3d

107, 109 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Graves, 5 F.3d 1546,

1555-56 (5th Cir. 1993).

For the first time on appeal, the Government argues that the

district court erroneously placed the burden of proof on the

Government to show that Perez was not reasonably capable of

producing eight kilograms of cocaine. Because the Government did

not raise the issue of burden of proof in the district court,

review is limited to plain error. United States v. Calverley, 37

F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Under Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52(b), this court may correct forfeited errors only when the

appellant shows the following factors: (1) there is an error,

(2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) that affects his

substantial rights. Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162-64 (citing United

States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-36 (1993)). If these factors

are established, the decision to correct the forfeited error is

within the sound discretion of the court, and the court will not

exercise that discretion unless the error seriously affects the

fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. Olano, 507 U.S. at 736. The record indicates that

the district court sought argument from both the Government and

Perez’s counsel concerning whether Perez was capable of producing

eight kilograms of cocaine and concerning which party suggested

the eight kilogram amount. The Government has not shown that the

district court shifted the burden of proof on the Government, and

therefore, the Government has not shown plain error. See
No. 99-20557

-3-

Calverley, 37 F.3d at 162-64.

AFFIRMED.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James W. MENDELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 75-2344.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Submitted June 14, 1976.

Decided July 20, 1976.

Henry A. Martin, Haile & Martin, Nashville, Tenn., for defendant-appellant.

James Mendell, pro se.

Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Richard L. Windsor, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiffappellee.

Before WEICK, EDWARDS and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted under the Dyer Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2312 (1970), for transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce and sentenced to two and one-half years imprisonment. There was ample evidence presented before the United States District Court in Nashville from which the jury could have found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The only issue presented pertains to the question as to whether or not the government introduced reversible error into the record by calling as a witness a young lady who had given a statement to an FBI Agent, which statement described defendant’s role in the theft of a Volkswagen from an automobile lot in Cincinnati, Ohio. Appellant contends that prior to calling this witness, Genny Leicht, the government knew that she was going to assert that she did not remember and that the government placed her on the witness stand just for the purpose of subsequently impeaching her evidence by the testimony of the FBI Agent, which otherwise would have been hearsay. In this respect appellant relies upon Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which reads as follows:

> *1239Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

> Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Prior to Miss Leicht’s testimony the government had presented the evidence of Stephen Dale Clark, who had testified about the roles of both defendant and Miss Leicht on the day of the theft of the Volkswagen and had placed Miss Leicht on the scene. Her evidence was certainly relevant either to confirm or dispute Clark’s testimony-

In the end, although on the witness stand she denied remembering the answers to most of the questions asked her, she flatly denied the essential testimony of Clark pertaining to her, namely, that she had gone to the Volkswagen lot with Clark and the defendant and that she and the defendant followed Clark as he drove the Volkswagen away. Under these circumstances, we believe that the trial judge was correct in ruling that she was a hostile witness and allowing impeachment of her testimony through the testimony of the FBI Agent concerning the statement which she earlier had given to him. The District Judge properly instructed the jury that the testimony of the FBI Agent should be considered for impeachment purposes only.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-60348

Summary Calendar

IBRAHIM LANGO ODUK,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A097 683 021

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ibrahim Lango Oduk, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions this court 

for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing 

his appeal of the order of an immigration judge (IJ) denying his application for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture (CAT). Oduk contends that the BIA erred when it determined that he 

abandoned his challenge to the IJ’s denial of his claim for relief under the CAT. 

 

* 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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 14, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-60348 Document: 00513422314 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
No. 15-60348

2

He argues that he sufficiently presented the issue to the BIA by raising it in 

his notice of appeal. Oduk further contends that the CAT claim should have 

been considered separately from his other claims because the agency’s adverse 

credibility determination is not dispositive of his CAT claim.

Judicial review of a final removal order is available only where the alien 

has exhausted all administrative remedies of right. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1). 

Because the exhaustion requirement is statutorily mandated, an alien’s failure 

to exhaust an issue before the BIA is a jurisdictional bar to this court’s 

consideration of the issue. Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2001). 

“An alien fails to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to an issue 

when the issue is not raised in the first instance before the BIA—either on 

direct appeal or in a motion to reopen.” Id. at 452-53. When an alien elects to 

submit a brief to the BIA, “that brief becomes the operative document through 

which any issues that a petitioner wishes to have considered must be raised.” 

Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir. 2010).

Oduk concedes that he did not raise his CAT claim in his appellate brief 

before the BIA. Oduk also failed to raise in his brief to the BIA his contention 

that the IJ erred by failing to separately analyze his CAT claim. Therefore, 

the only issues Oduk raises in his petition for review are unexhausted, and this 

court lacks jurisdiction to consider them. See Claudio, 601 F.3d at 319; Wang, 

260 F.3d at 452. Accordingly, Oduk’s petition for review is DISMISSED for 

lack of jurisdiction.

 Case: 15-60348 Document: 00513422314 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/14/2016
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 8, 2015

No. 04-14-00341-CV

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR CITY OF SAN ANTONIO & Sarosh Management, LLC 

d/b/a A-Z Food Mart,

Appellants

v.

EAST CENTRAL INDEP. SCH. DISTRICT,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CI-17596

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On March 18, 2015, this court issued its opinion and judgment. On April 2, 2015, 

Appellant Board of Adjustment for the City of San Antonio timely filed its motion for rehearing. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.1. 

On April 6, 2015, Appellant Sarosh Management, LLC filed a notice of appearance of 

appellate counsel and an unopposed motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing 

and a motion for en banc reconsideration until May 4, 2015. See id. R. 49.1, 49.7, 49.8. 

Appellant’s motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s motions are due to 

be filed with this court by May 4, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8992]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Arts and Artifacts 
Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the Federal Council on 
the Arts and the Humanities will hold a meeting of the Arts and 
Artifacts International Indemnity Panel. The purpose of the meeting is 
for panel review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendation on 
applications for Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal 
Council on the Arts and the Humanities, for exhibitions beginning after 
July 1, 2012.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 8, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 
5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The location of the meeting is the Old Post Office Building, 
1100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisette Voyatzis, Committee Management 
Officer, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 
(202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that 
information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the National 
Endowment for the Humanities' TDD terminal at (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because the meeting will consider 
proprietary financial and commercial data provided in confidence by 
indemnity applicants, and material that is likely to disclose trade 
secrets or other privileged or confidential information, and because it 
is important to keep the values of objects to be indemnified, and the 
methods of transportation and security measures confidential, I have 
determined that that the meeting will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(4) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code. I 
have made this determination under the authority granted me by the 
Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee 
Meetings, dated July 19, 1993.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Lisette Voyatzis,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-8992 Filed 4-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
Proposal Under the Small Community 

Air Service Development Program

Docket DOT-OST-2011-0119

Submitted by

Manistee County Blacker Airport

Barry Lind

Airport Director

2323 Airport Road

Manistee, Michigan 49660

DUNS# 948868799

EIN 382169455

MI-002
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Steven DeWayne Pruitt, Appellant

No. 06-14-00059-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 8th District Court of 

Hopkins County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1323452). Opinion delivered by Chief 

Justice Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Steven DeWayne Pruitt, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED APRIL 8, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

OmCIAL BUSINESS:-^.-jj^jramo. <T ^

(O. rig

•ICLU..

02 1R

0006557458 MAR 31 2C

STATE ©F TEXAS

PEMALTY FOR&V

3/26/2015 PRIVATE USE£<1; {

CARSON, JAMES BERNARD,JR:

WR-59,872-09

Aj£f Writ of:-Habeas Corpus has been received

Abel Acosta, Clerk

On this ds $£fef$ ty^

and preset iteflWfc

NAME AND SID NUMBERfDO

NOT MATCH

FACILITY

iSrVP'srss—^b^U'Tr

JAMES BERNAT^erCARSON JR.

items not allowed JBWR COUNTY ADULT - TDC# 653492

2$)'$l. COWlAL utf

SAN'-ANtONIO, TX 78207

i|i.-t,||fi|i.i.i|lii .i|||,i),iHlaiii.|ll,ltiyi)iin|.^^ \