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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

James H. Davis d/b/a JD Minerals, Walter

Allison Baen, Santos J. Dominguez and

Dixie L. Hester

,

Appellant s

,

v.

COG Operating, LLC, Neal Brusenhan

Properties, LP, Neal Brusenhan

Management, LLC as General Partner of

Neal Brusenhan Properties, LP, Robert L.

Neal as Trustee of the Neal Robert L.

Management Trust and Jessie Frances

Neal

,

Appellees. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 20

- 00 205

- C V

Appeal from the

1 1 2 th Dis trict Court

of Upton C ounty, Texas

(TC# 18

- 04

- U4615

- OTH )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is the Appellants’ unopposed motion to direct the district clerk

to send original documents to the Court of Appeals. The motion is GRANTED. Therefore, the

Court ORDERS the dist rict clerk to forward the original Exhibits 32 through 43 inclusive, marked

“co nfidential” and filed “under seal,” attached to Plaintiffs’ Traditional Motion for Summary

Judgment filed on October 28, 2019. The original exhibits are due with this Court on or before

November 13, 2020

. The Court will return the original exhibits to the District Clerk of Upton2

County, Texas, after final disposition of this appeal. The Court will keep these files under seal

pe nding review of this appeal.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 3 rd day of November

, 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: MARINDA PALACIOS, '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 16

- 00220

- CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2016DCV2587)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no reversible

error in the judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1343 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1343

      To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove an 
institutional bias by making permanent the protection for recipients of 
   home and community-based services against spousal impoverishment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 25, 2019

Mrs. Dingell (for herself and Mr. Upton) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to remove an 
institutional bias by making permanent the protection for recipients of 
   home and community-based services against spousal impoverishment.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Married Seniors from 
Impoverishment Act''.

SEC. 2. MAKING PERMANENT THE PROTECTION UNDER MEDICAID FOR RECIPIENTS 
              OF HOME AND COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AGAINST SPOUSAL 
              IMPOVERISHMENT.

    Section 1924(h)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
5(h)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``(at the option of the State) is 
described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI)'' and inserting the 
following: ``before April 1, 2019, (at the option of the State) is 
described in section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(VI), or, beginning April 1, 
2019, is eligible for medical assistance for home and community-based 
services provided under subsection (c), (d), or (i) of section 1915, 
under a waiver approved under section 1115, or who is eligible for such 
medical assistance by reason of being determined eligible under section 
1902(a)(10)(C) or by reason of section 1902(f) or otherwise on the 
basis of a reduction of income based on costs incurred for medical or 
other remedial care, or who is eligible for medical assistance for home 
and community-based attendant services and supports under section 
1915(k)''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Membership of Performance Review Board for Senior 
Executives (PRB)

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby provides notice of 
the membership of its Performance Review Board (PRB) for the 
Commission's Senior Executive Service (SES) members. The function of 
this board is to make recommendations relating to the performance of 
senior executives in the Commission. This action is undertaken in 
accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4).
    The Commission's PRB will remove the following member:

Joseph H. McClelland

    Dated: January 2, 2013.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-00121 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
| 1. | I am a duly authorized officer of BMW Financial Services NA, LLC; |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2. | I have reviewed the terms of that certain Servicing Agreement, dated as of August 30, 1995 (the “Basic Servicing Agreement”), between Financial Services Vehicle Trust (the “Trust”) and BMW Financial Services NA,                LLC, as servicer (in such capacity, the “Servicer”), as supplemented by the 2023-2 Servicing Supplement, dated as of October 11, 2023 (together with the Basic Servicing Agreement, the “Servicing Agreement”), among the Trust, BMW                Manufacturing L.P., as grantor and initial beneficiary of the Trust, and BMW Financial Services NA, LLC, as sponsor and as Servicer, and I have made, or have caused to be made under my supervision, a review of the activities of the Servicer                and the performance of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement during the period from October 11, 2023 to December 31, 2023; and |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 3. | to the best of my knowledge, based on the review described in paragraph 2 above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects during the period from                October 11, 2023 to December 31, 2023. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |  |
|--|--|
JAMAAL ALI BILAL f.k.a. 

JOHN L. BURTON,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1485

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Jamaal Bilal, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(d)(5).

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. JOHN WAYNE WHITE, a/k/a Whitey,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:96-cr-00006-GCM-6)

Submitted: June 18, 2009 Decided: June 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wayne White, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John Wayne White appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. White , No. 3:96-cr-00006-GCM-6 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 7, 2009). We deny White’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
Order filed, May 16, 2013

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00218

- CR

____________ DANIEL MICAH VERMILY EA , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 1335846



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due May 07, 2013

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record.
The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Judy Fox and Marcia Barnett , the court reporter s , to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
#### Vandersloot, Appellant, *v.*Pennsylvania Water & Power Company.

*Equity jurisdiction*— Injury *to real estate within county*— Con*struction of dam*— Overflow—Greater *part of dam in another county*— Bill *hy riparian owners*— Belief *to affect entire dam*— Befusal.

A bill in equity complaining of the overflow of water caused by defendant’s dam was properly dismissed where, although the prayers were so drafted that the court was asked to make such decrees as would pertain only to the physical construction of the dam in the county in which the suit was begun, such orders would necessarily affect the entire dam of the defendant, the largest portion of which was outside the jurisdiction of the court.

Argued June 5, 1918.

Appeal, No. 62, Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from decree of C. P. York Co., Oct. T., 1916, No. 1, in equity, dismissing bill in equity for injunction in case of John Edward Vandersloot v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co.

Before Brown, C. J., Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling and Simpson, JJ.

Affirmed.

Bill in equity for injunction to require removal of flash-boards on part of defendant’s dam west of line dividing York and Lancaster Counties and for other relief. Before Ross, J.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case.

Further facts appear in Vandersloot v. Pa. W. & P. Co., 259 Pa. 99.

The lower court dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

*Error*assigned, among others, was in dismissing bill.

*28July 17, 1918:

*Henry O. Niles,*with, him *Michael S. Niles, Charles A. May*and *George E. Neff,*for appellant.

*W. F. Bay Stewart,*with him *John E. Malone*and *Frederick B. Gerber,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This appeal is dismissed, at the costs of the appellant, on the following from the opinion of the learned court below making absolute the rule' to set aside the order of service and the service of the bill: “A careful examination of the amended bill and the prayers based thereon, leads to the conclusion that the present contention is controlled by the ruling of the Supreme Court (Vandersloot v. Pa. W. & P. Co., 259 Pa. 104). The prayers are so drafted that the court is asked to make such orders and decrees as would only pertain to the physical construction of the dam which exists in York County, yet it is quite obvious that any such order or decree would necessarily affect the entire dam of the defendant, the largest portion of which is outside the jurisdiction of the court.”
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Copano Energy, L.L.C. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
September 30, 2004 (the "Report") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 20, 2004, I, John R. Eckel, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



|Date: December 20, 2004 |  | /s/JOHN R. ECKEL, JR.John R. Eckel, Jr.
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1

---



QuickLinks
Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600

SUSAN HAWK

CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

April 8, 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Court of Criminal Appeals Writ Nos. WR-82,850-01 and WR-82,850-02; 

 Trial Court Cause Nos. W08-71994-V(A) and W11-00273-V(A); 

Ex parte Anthony Eugene Johnson

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

On March 13, 2015, the Dallas County District Clerk’s Office filed a Clerk’s Record in 

the above-mentioned cases.1

 That record contains the Applicant’s Proposed Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, which were signed by the trial court on March 11, 2015. The State was not 

served with a copy of the signed findings or otherwise notified of the trial court’s ruling (which 

recommends that relief be granted in Applicant’s cases) until yesterday, April 7, 2015, when the 

undersigned received a hard copy of the signed findings in her mailbox. 

Please allow this letter to serve as notice that, with all possible speed, the State will 

prepare and file with the trial court, The State’s Objections to Applicant’s Proposed Findings of 

Fact and Conclusions of Law in the above-mentioned cases. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 Christine Womble 

 Assistant District Attorney 

 State Bar No. 24035991 

 Frank Crowley Courts Building 

 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., LB-19 

 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 

 (214) 653-3625 

 (214) 653-3643 fax 

 

1 The Court’s website reflects that the record was received on March 18, 2015. The State notes that on 

March 20, 2015, the Court granted a 60-day extension of time for findings to be completed. 

WR-82,850-02

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/8/2015 9:22:15 AM

Accepted 4/8/2015 9:28:12 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/8/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Frank Crowley Courts Building, 133 North Riverfront Boulevard, LB-19 Dallas, Texas 75207-4399 (214) 653-3600

2

cc: The Hon. Brandon Birmingham, Judge 292nd Judicial District Court (via email)

Bruce Anton (via email)

Randy Schaffer (via email)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8001

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL THOMPSON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Dever, III, 

Chief District Judge. (4:08-cr-00057-D-1; 4:11-cv-00175-D)

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 28, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Michael Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, North Carolina; 

Shailika K. Shah, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In a single order, the district court denied Michael 

Thompson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for a 

sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). For the 

reasons that follow, we dismiss in part and affirm in part. 

Turning first to the portion of the order denying 

§ 2255 relief, the order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Thompson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 
3

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss Thompson’s

appeal from the denial of his § 2255 motion.

Turning to the portion of the order denying Thompson’s 

motion for reduction of sentence, we have reviewed the record 

and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United 

States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, 

we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief. 

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.

DISMISSED IN PART;

AFFIRMED IN PART
#### 310 West End Avenue Owners Corp., Respondent-Appellant, v 310 West Realty Co. et al., Appellants-Respondents, and Jill Soffer, Respondent.

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered on or about November 1, 1989, unanimously affirmed for the reasons stated by Beverly Cohen, J., without costs. No opinion. Concur —Murphy, P. J., Carro, Wallach and Rubin.
<Page>

                                                                 ARTHUR ANDERSEN



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the use of our report
(and to all references to our Firm) included in or made a part of this
Registration Statement File No. 33-37577 for Fortis Benefits Insurance Company
Variable Account D on Form N-4.

Hartford, Connecticut                                   /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
April 17, 2002
International Commodity Procurement Division Purchases

FY2018 - Quarter 2

Commodity Qty in MT PO Value Average Cost

BEANS, BLACK BAG-50 KG 310 $242,570.90 $782.49

BEANS, PINTO BAG-50 KG 1,430 $897,198.00 $627.41

BEANS, SMALL RED BAG-50 KG 180 $149,378.40 $829.88

CORN, YELLOW BAG-50 KG 740 $164,550.00 $222.36

CORNMEAL BAG-HP-25 KG 12,590 $5,975,422.80 $474.62

CORN-SOY BLEND PLUS BAG-HP-25 KG 20,770 $14,232,648.20 $685.25

CSB SUPER CEREAL PLUS BOX-10/1.5 KG 4,630 $8,789,624.42 $1,898.39

FLOUR, ALL PURPOSE BAG-50 KG 800 $369,541.60 $461.93

LENTILS BAG-50 KG 14,850 $8,471,185.90 $570.45

OIL, SUNFLWRSD BOTTLE, PLS-6/4 L 670-719 40 $79,844.02 $1,994.42

OIL, VEGETABLE CAN-6/4 L 26,861 $31,308,840.57 $1,165.61

OIL, VEGETABLE PAIL-20 L 400 $557,817.55 $1,394.43

PEAS, GREEN, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 110 $52,082.10 $473.47

PEAS, YELLOW, SPLIT BAG-50 KG 28,170 $12,962,855.80 $460.17

PEAS, YELLOW, WHOLE BAG-50 KG 9,850 $3,964,666.30 $402.50

RICE, 2/7 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 400 $217,831.80 $544.58

RICE, 3/15 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 1,400 $693,700.00 $495.50

RICE, 3/15 MG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 80 $50,886.40 $636.08

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 11,300 $5,347,236.30 $473.21

RICE, 5/20 LG, W-MLD, FORT BAG-50 KG 3,330 $1,669,522.60 $501.36

RICE, 5/20 MG, W-MLD BAG-50 KG 1,890 $975,961.80 $516.38

SORGHUM BAG-50 KG 10,210 $2,485,450.40 $243.43

SORGHUM BULK 174,060 $33,785,555.40 $194.10

WHEAT, HARD RED WINTER BULK 81,450 $16,513,136.00 $202.74

WHEAT, SOFT WHITE BULK 185,900 $39,851,932.60 $214.37

Grand Total 591,751 $189,809,439.86 

Commodity Qty in EA PO Value Average Cost

BAGS, WOVEN POLYPROPYLENE- 50 KG 4,722,000 $1,700,444.00 $0.3601
BRIGGS & STRATTON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Briggs & Stratton Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended July 3, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David J. Rodgers, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



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



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ David J. Rodgers   
|David J. Rodgers       
|Chief Financial Officer
|September 1, 2011      

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.