alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

** Honorable Wesley E. Brown, Senior District Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 31 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CANOVA GEORGE SINGLETON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; FRANK

KEATING, Governor; STEVE

HARGETT; JAMES L. SAFFLE,

Deputy Warden,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 97-6372

(D.C. No. CIV-97-356-C)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before TACHA and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BROWN,** Senior District

Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
-2-

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Canova George Singleton appeals from the district court’s grant of

summary judgment to defendants on his civil rights claims, filed pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. As before the district court, on appeal Mr. Singleton contends

that:

a) under Oklahoma’s Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act,

credits are granted some prisoners--but not others--resulting in

overcrowding and double-celling, which, combined with a lack of

health screening, results in risk of harm to prisoners in violation of

their equal protection rights;

b) Oklahoma has conspired to deny prisoners, including Mr. Singleton,

the right to vote;

c) Oklahoma’s prison classification system creates a class of prisoners

in violation of due process and equal protection and has the effect of

increasing Mr. Singleton’s sentence; and

d) Defendants have retaliated against Mr. Singleton for the filing of an

administrative grievance.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,

applying the same legal standard used by that court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
-3-

56(c). See Kaul v. Stephan, 83 F.3d 1208, 1212 (10th Cir. 1996). Further, we

construe Mr. Singleton’s pro se pleadings liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). After careful review of the entire record on appeal in light

of these standards, and after due consideration of the parties’ briefs, we conclude

that the district court correctly decided this case. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge
* 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. 01-20808

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DERVAN VALENTINE COX,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-92-1

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

 Dervan Valentine Cox appeals his conviction for being a

felon in possession of a firearm in and affecting interstate

commerce in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Cox stipulated

at the bench trial that the rifle found in his home had been

manufactured in Connecticut; however, he unsuccessfully moved for

a judgment of acquittal based on an insufficient nexus between

the firearm and interstate commerce. 

 On appeal, Cox argues that the evidence was insufficient to

prove the interstate-commerce element of the 28 U.S.C. § 922(g)
No. 01-20808

-2-

offense because the evidence proved only that the rifle traveled

across state lines at some point in the past. He acknowledges

that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Daugherty,

264 F.3d 513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1113

(2002), but seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review.

 This court has repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges

to § 922(g)(1) convictions, concluding that the interstatecommerce element of the offense is satisfied by the possession of

a firearm that was manufactured in a different state or country. 

See id. at 518 & n.12. As one panel of this court may not

overrule or ignore a prior panel decision, Cox’s conviction is

AFFIRMED. See United States v. Ruiz, 180 F.3d 675, 676 (5th Cir.

1999). 

 AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 11 - Computation of earnings per share


Earnings per common share were computed as follows:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                                                                
                                                        Thirteen Weeks Ended         Thirty-Nine Weeks Ended
                                                    ---------------------------     ---------------------------
In thousands, except share and per share amounts     November 2,    November 1,      November 2,     November 1,
                                                       1996             1997             1996            1997
                                                    ------------   ------------     ------------    ------------
<S>                                                 <C>            <C>              <C>             <C>         
Net income (loss) ............................      $    (2,637)   $    (3,250)     $    (8,604)    $    (8,854)
                                                    ============   ============     ============    ============
Weighted average shares:
   Weighted average shares - Common...........        7,419,950      7,720,663        7,416,353       7,521,391
   Common stock equivalent pursuant  to                                                                                   
         APB 15 (1)...........................           61,425         85,951           64,829          79,646      
                                                    ------------   ------------     ------------    ------------
Total weighted average shares.................        7,481,375      7,806,614        7,481,182       7,601,036
                                                    ============   ============     ============    ============
Net income (loss) per share applicable to                                                                                 
     common shares............................      $     (0.35)   $     (0.42)     $     (1.15)    $     (1.16)      
                                                    ============   ============     ============    ============
</TABLE>


_______________________ 
(1)  In accordance with APB 15, the common stock  equivalents were calculated by
     applying the treasury  stock  method,  and limiting the number of shares of
     Common Stock  obtainable upon exercise of outstanding  options and warrants
     in the aggregate to 20% of the number of shares  outstanding  at the end of
     the period for which the computation is being made.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

January 16, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00023

- CR
Murjan Issack ABDI, Appe llant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee
From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR8191B Honorable Sid L. Harle, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R
Appellant pled guilty to two counts: capital murder and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon

. On April 6, 2018 , t he trial court found Appellant guilty of the offense s , and it sentenced him on each count to confinement for thirty

- five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

— Institutional Divisio n, with the sentences to run concurrently. The record does not show that Appellant filed a motion for new trial or any other postjudgment motion that would e xtend the appellate timetable. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 22.5, 26.2(a)(2)

. Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on May 7, 2018

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). O n January 8 , 201 9 , Appellant filed a notice of appeal

— which was about eight months late. A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely motion for new trial, a defendant’s notice of appeal is timely filed if it is filed within thir ty days after (1) the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or (2) the day the trial court enters an appealable order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2; Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522. In this case, the appellate record does not show that Appellant’s not ice of appeal was timely filed. A late notice of appeal may be considered timely and invoke a co urt of appeal s ’ jurisdiction if it meets the following requirements: (1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing
,(2) a motion for e xtension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal
, and (3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time.

Olivo
, 9 18 S.W.2d at 522 ; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (stating that an out

- of

- time appeal from a final felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure). We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo , 918 S.W.2d at 522 ; Ater , 802 S.W.2d at 243.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of January, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; RFA Panel: Single Cell Analysis Reviews.                    

*Date:*                         May 8, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Residence Inn Bethesda, 7335 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John Burch, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institute of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3213, MSC 7808, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-408-9519,                         *burchjb@csr.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 11, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-9224 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9960]



[[Page 24697]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1566-000]


 Cooper Mountain Solar 2, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Cooper Mountain Solar 2, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is May 9, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6d2b283f2e2203010403083e181d1d021f192d0b081f0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="60262532232f0e0c090e05331510100f121420060512034e070f16">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9960 Filed 4-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
M A N D A T E

TO THE 139TH DISTRICT COURT of HIDALGO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 20th day of

November, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

CITY OF ALAMO, TEXAS AND

ALAMO ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellants,

v.

HERIBERTO OSUNA, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-13-00317-CV (Tr.Ct.No. C-3570-12-C)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be REVERSED and

RENDERED. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED and

RENDERS a judgment of dismissal. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 23red day of February, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Salvatore D’Auria, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Quarterly Report of Tut Systems Inc., on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Tut Systems, Inc.

 

 
|               | By:    | /s/ Salvatore D’Auria                                                            |   |
|--------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|               |   | Salvatore D’Auria  President, Chief Executive Officer  and Chairman of the Board |   |
|               |   |                                                                                  |   |
| Date: May 12, 2005 |   |                                                                                  |   |

 

----
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10p
                                AMENDMENT NO. 2
                                       TO
            BRUSH WELLMAN INC. SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN
                         (DECEMBER 1, 1992 RESTATEMENT)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Brush Wellman Inc., an Ohio corporation, hereby adopts this
Amendment No. 2 to the Brush Wellman Inc. Supplemental Retirement Benefit Plan
(December 1, 1992 Restatement) (the "Plan").

                                       I.

                Schedule I of the Plan is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:

        Section III -- Special Provisions Applicable to Carl Cramer
        -----------------------------------------------------------
                With respect to Carl Cramer, the following shall apply with
        respect to Article VI of the Plan: For the period January 1, 1996
        through March 31, 1996 amounts that constitute Credited Compensation of
        Mr. Cramer under the Savings Plan for such period shall be treated as
        Excess Credited Compensation for purposes of Article VI of the Plan, but
        no election by Mr. Cramer pursuant to the first sentence of Section 6.2
        of the Plan shall occur with respect to such amounts, and, for purposes
        of the third sentence of Section 6.2 of the Plan, there shall be
        credited to Mr. Cramer's Supplemental Savings Plan Account an amount
        equal to the Employer Contributions that would have been made to the
        Savings Plan if 6% of the amount treated as Excess Credited Compensation
        pursuant to this Section III had been Basic Contributions (CODA) under
        the Savings Plan.

                                      II.

                The changes to the Plan made by this Amendment No. 2 shall be
effective as of January 1, 1996.

                Executed at Cleveland, Ohio, this 6th day of December, 1995.

                                       BRUSH WELLMAN INC.

                                       By: /s/ Michael C. Hasychak
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Title: Treasurer and Secretary
<PAGE>
Exhibit 21

          Subsidiaries.
     209
<PAGE>
Subsidiaries

     The subsidiaries of Brenton Banks, Inc., their location, the
jurisdiction in which they are incorporated or organized, and the names under
which subsidiaries do business are:

Name Under which Subsidiary                               Jurisdiction in
Does Business and Location                             which Incorporated or
    of Subsidiary                                            Organized

     Banks

Brenton Savings Bank, FSB                                   United States
Ames, Iowa

Brenton Bank                                                Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa


  Non-Bank Subsidiaries

Brenton Investments, Inc.                                   Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa

Brenton Insurance Services, Inc.                            Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa

Brenton Mortgages, Inc.                                     Iowa
Des Moines, Iowa

Brenton Insurance Inc.                                      Iowa
Adel, Iowa

Brenton Realty Services, Ltd.                               Iowa
Marshalltown, Iowa

Brenton Savings Financial Services, Inc.                    Iowa
Ames, Iowa
     210
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 11, 2023

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00175-CV

DIANA INGRID REISMANN SEXTON, Appellant

V.

GILBERT SEXTON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-264966

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order denying a motion to recuse signed

March 1, 2023. An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed on appeal 

from the final judgment. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(B). There is no final judgment in 

this matter.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When orders do not dispose of 

all pending parties and claims, the orders remain interlocutory and unappealable 
2

until final judgment is rendered unless a statutory exception applies. Bally Total 

Fitness Corp. v. Jackson, 53 S.W.3d 352, 352 (Tex. 2001); Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. 

v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). There are no 

statutory provisions authorizing an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a 

motion to recuse a judge. See In re Hart, 460 S.W.3d 742, 743 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth 2015, no pet.).

On April 19, 2023, notification was transmitted to the parties of this court’s 

intention to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a 

response demonstrating grounds for continuing the appeal on or before May 1, 

2023. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). Appellant did not file a response. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hassan, and Wilson.