alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

M a tth e w s c o n s e n te dto p r o c e e db e f o r e am a g is tr a te ju d g e . See 28 ** U . S . C . § 6 36 (c ).

*** T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T TERREN CE M A TTH EW S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. O L I V I A C R A V E N ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 35553 D. C . No . 1 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 2 4 5 - MHW ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I daho M i ke l H . W i l l i a m s , M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng **

S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r9, 2012 *** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , M U R G U IA , an dW A T F O R D , C i rcu i tJu d g es. T erre nce M atthew s, an Idaho st at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct court ’ s j ud gm entdi sm i ss i ng hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1 98 3 act i on al l egi ng const i tut i on al 

# FI LED OC T 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 35553 2 vi ol a t i ons i n c onne c t i on w i th hi s pa r ol e r e voc a t i on and s ubs e que ntde ni a l of pa r ol e . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo a d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A . R es ni ck v. H ayes , 21 3 F . 3d 44 3, 44 7 (9th C i r. 2000) . W e a f

f i rm i n pa rt , va c a t e i n part , a nd r e m and. Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rtp r o p e r l yd i s mi s s e dth e a c t i o n b e c au s e M a tth e w s ’ s c l a i ms a r e p r e mi s e do n h i s “ a c tu a l i n n o c e n c e ” a n ds u c c e s s o n th e me r i t s o f th e s e c l a i ms w o u ldn e c e s s a r ilyim p lyth e in v a lid ityo f h is c o n f in e m e n t. See H

ec k v . H um ph re y , 512 U . S . 477, 486- 87 ( 1994) . H ow e ve r , be c aus e the di s tr i c tc ourtdi s m i s s e d the a c t i on w i th pr e

j udi c e , w e va c a t e the j udgm e nti n part , a nd r e m and f ore ntryof d is m is s a l w ith o u t p r e

ju d ic e . See T

ri m b le v. C i t

y o f Sa n ta R o sa , 49 F . 3d 583, 585 (9th C i r. 19 95 ) ( per c uri am ) ( di sm i ss al s und er H ec k ar e w i tho utprej ud i ce ). AF F I RME D i n p a r t , V AC AT E D i n p a r t , a n d RE MAND E D.
. 

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

E, or t?la ctEt0 carretttuLl tsrat1an Of gubli0 pm8 Constltutlaa rimaxra pray wl;i.ch 58 privlitaly omxid 

srntlitae: 

,rtlclc 7138, Li;octlai: 4, 

grwldea t.hnt "A.1 pmprty 

bclon&,q to tbr, 32itis3 Ytatea shull 

, but the statutss nowhere attmpt to 

property wh;hPch Ls ~>r~:viitely ~'mcd, 

ltcd stat68 Qx? a lodurnl i3,genoy. mchl.ag 

'%P the tk;:tau statas sxcrlpts IxlCh -propsporty 

fX'oa taxation by ?30 etata and cotxaty. 

-met pivate property 15 used exalwlvoly 

far public pr?caerr do&m 113% c!mi@3 tl32 mturs oi 

tho property OF the tftle tharuto 80 AS to oomort 
. ~0s. Ceo. H. Shwp,gard, rage e 

it into publio prapertp.m 

It may be urged that the rental rcqulred to be paid 

by aorkse ~rogrees AdEdnistration ~111 be more with the st~t.e l 

ad OouatY f=X% the property than it wauld be otherwise. 

xi so, the burden lefd on the yedoral Covexnmnt US at nmt 

only~an indirect One and not such as to forbid the levy and 

colleatlon of such tams. In the aass or Jones ~8. EZUVO i2onstruotlon co., 302 D. S. 134, opinion by Chief Justice Ewhes, 

it was held that an oacupation tax measured by ~08s income is 

not invalid where inposed by a state upon a contraator with 

the United States as laying a direct burden on the Federal Gaymamt,~ even though the kqosition of the tax nay lnarease the 

cost to the. goverumnt of the work oontraoted to be done. 

Ftllure to tax th$s property would be to violato AZ- 

%? 8, Ssotlon 1, of the Constltutltn of Texas, provldlly 

: 

_ 

. . 

aTexstfon shall be e~$ml and uulfora, All 

prcqWty in #lo St&c, whether mmed by natu- 

,ral persons or corporetlons athoe than munioipal, shall be taxed in proportion to its value 

.whiah shrill be asaertalned as may be provided 

by law.” 

The properties mentioned in said questions are subjeot to tax by the county and state and both of’ your guestiohS 

are answered in the negative. Correspondence attached te your 

Pequest Fould Indicate that there may be scn38 o_ue8tlon as to 

nhether Works irogrose i,duiniistretion is r,ayiug any rental on 

one piece or this property, or is receiving the use or It @aus. .‘a may be Gathered f ram v&at we huve already said, that 

is an &material oohslderatlor. ‘I?:e property is none the less 

privately owned, 

Your0 very truly
June 9, 1998

20596

#### State v. Pere

Affirmed
#### State v. Oshiro

17088

9/22/95

Affirmed
#### Department of Health of the City of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Natural Plating Corporation et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

May *22,*1959.

*502
      *Charles H. Tenney, Corporation Counsel (Joseph M. Callahan, Jr.,*and *Joseph Entel*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*Borris M. Komar*for Natural Plating Corporation, defendant.

George Tilzer, J.

Plaintiff moves for an order granting it permission to retain, pending trial of the action, certain devices and incidental materials and restraining the defendants from instituting any action or proceeding seeking a return thereof. The defendant cross-moves for summary judgment and for relief pursuant to rules 107 (suhds. 4, 5) and 106 (subd. 4) of the Rules of Civil Practice. The application for relief pursuant to rule 113 is premature. In the prior action the parties were reversed. A seizure had been made pursuant to section 135 of article 8 of the Sanitary Code of the City of New York, upon the ground of misbranding. In that action the Appellate Division *(Metallic Flowers*v. *City of New York,*4 A D 2d 292) had found misbranding and denied injunctive relief. On further appeal (5 N Y 2d 246) the Court of Appeals determined that any condemnation proceeding taken by the Department of Health under the Sanitary Code must accord with the procedure specified in a like case presented under section 6813 of the Education Law. Its *Per Curiam*opinion continued (p. 249): “ Until those safeguards afforded plaintiff by law are observed, we may not pass upon the basic question of whether the plaintiff’s bracelet was misbranded. The seizure here having been in violation of those procedural safeguards, the plaintiff is entitled to a return of its property. The defendants and other appropriate authorities, if any, are free, of course, to initiate any proper proceedings or prosecutions, if they so choose.”

The judgment of the Appellate Division dismissing that part of the complaint seeking an injunction against the Department of Health was affirmed and the dismissal of that part seeking a return of the property was reversed.

In these circumstances, the prior action is not a bar by adjudication. In addition, plaintiff insists that the present action is based upon a new condemnation. Apparently the department has never, in fact, parted with possession of the property since the original condemnation. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances relied on by plaintiff with respect to the whereabouts of the defendant and for the purpose of this cross *503motion, the action must he deemed to have been timely commenced.

The cross motion is denied in all respects, with leave to the defendant to plead the Statute of Limitations. The main motion is granted.

Settle order.
March 29, 2007

27321

#### State v. Robertson

Reversed, Affirmed, Vacated and Remanded
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,012,000
<SECURITIES>                                    60,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  324,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,000
<INVENTORY>                                    806,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,198,000
<PP&E>                                         950,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 794,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,446,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          429,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,128,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   (111,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,446,000
<SALES>                                      2,895,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,945,000
<CGS>                                        1,893,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,433,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (459,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (460,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (460,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
THE KLEIN LAW FIRM

2000 THE LYRIC CENTRE

440 LOUISIANA STREET

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002

(713) 650-1111

FACSIMILE (713) 227-1121

 

J. TODD TROMBLEY

 

 OF COUNSEL

_________________

MYRIAM K. LEGGE

 OF COUNSEL

ALEXANDER B. KLEIN III

BOARD CERTIFIED

PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW

TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL

SPECIALIZATION

ALSO LICENSED IN COLORADO

April 21, 2015

Mr. Christopher A. Prine

Clerk, 14 Court of Appeals th

301 Fannin Street, Suite 245

Houston, Texas 77002

Re: Appellate Court Case No. 14-14-00754-CV; Andre McCoy, as Permanent Guardian

of Shannon Miles McCoy, an Incapacitated Person vs. FemPartners, Inc.;

FemPartners of Central Houston, L.P. f/k/a OGA Management Partnership, L.P.,

New OGA, Inc., ProAssurance Corporation, American Physicians Services Group,

Inc., and American Physicians Services Group, Inc. f/k/a American Physicians

Insurance Company f/k/a American Physicians Insurance Exchange; An Appeal

of the Final Summary Judgment issued by Probate Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas

in Trial Court Cause No. 352,923-404

Dear Mr. Prine:

Pursuant to your letter of April 20, 2015, this constitutes notice that Todd Trombley will be

presenting oral argument to the Court on behalf of Appellant, Andre McCoy, as Permanent Guardian

of Shannon Miles McCoy, an Incapacitated Person.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Alexander B. Klein III

Alexander B. Klein III

ABK:peb

cc: Mr. John R. Strawn, Jr. Via Facsimile No. (713) 659-9601

and eService

Mr. Tynan Buthod/Mr. Brandon Goodwin Via Facsimile No. (713) 229-2712

and eService

ACCEPTED

14-14-00754-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

4/21/2015 7:48:52 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 4/21/2015 7:48:52 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-6837

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DENNIS HOWELL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-136-N, CA-95-361-2)

Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Howell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Smith, Nos. CR-89-136-N; CA-95-361-2 (E.D. Va. May 1, 1995). 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
18454

#### Western Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc., Matter of Application of

Affirmed
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00562-CV

ZUEHL LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, DOROTHY GOLDING AND DIANE 

WIEMANN, Appellants

V.

ZUEHL AIRPORT FLYING COMMUNITY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellee

Appeal from the 274th District Court of Guadalupe County. (Tr. Ct. No. 08-1872-CV).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on May 21, 

2014, which was transferred by the Supreme Court of Texas to this Court from the Court of 

Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas. After submitting the case on the appellate record 

and the arguments properly raised by the parties, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the trial court’s judgment in the following respects: (1) the denial of attorney’s fees 

to appellants under Property Code section 5.006 and (2) the determination of the amount of 

sanctions imposed against appellant Dorothy Golding. Accordingly, the Court reverses

the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the trial court to determine a reasonable 

attorney’s fee award and a just sanction.

The Court orders that the appellants, Zuehl Land Development, LLC, Dorothy 

Golding, and Diane Wiemann, jointly and severally, pay one half of the appellate costs. 
The Court orders that the appellee, Zuehl Airport Flying Community Owners Association, 

Inc., pay one half of the appellate costs. 

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

Judgment rendered April 21, 2015.

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Brown and Lloyd. Opinion delivered 

by Justice Brown.
# C_2016202EN.01003901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/39

---

Article 43

1.   The tasks referred to in Article 42(1), in the course of which the Union may use civilian and military means, shall include joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.

2.   The Council shall adopt decisions relating to the tasks referred to in paragraph 1, defining their objectives and scope and the general conditions for their implementation. The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, acting under the authority of the Council and in close and constant contact with the Political and Security Committee, shall ensure coordination of the civilian and military aspects of such tasks.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      23,064,269
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,111,495
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,175,764
<PP&E>                                     104,393,605
<DEPRECIATION>                              49,097,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              80,471,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,446,354
<BONDS>                                     37,658,473
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  41,367,169
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                80,471,996
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,804,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,221,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,619,558
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,963,468
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,963,468
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,963,468
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20306

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO NARVAREZ-IGLESIAS, also known as Geronimo Saenz, also 

known as Alejandro Antonio Navarez-Iglesias, also known as Geronimo Albert 

Zarazua, also known as Geronimo A. Zarazua, also known as Geronimo 

Guadalupe Saenz, also known as Javier Garcia, also known as Alejandro 

Narvaez Iglecias, also known as Albert Zarazua, also known as Geronimo 

Zarazua Luis Jose Villalobos, also known as Jose Luis Villalobos,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-56-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alejandro Narvarez-Iglesias has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

* 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

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-20306 Document: 00513013173 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-20306

Cir. 2011). Narvarez-Iglesias has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-20306 Document: 00513013173 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply620Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Demetrius Collins (not verified)PermalinkNovember 17, 2020 - 8:24pmGreat stuff Andy!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
Caasz M>1

^tirmtimerof££//Y)/A/At M%m<s

__^hAST7AJ, 7^/^S COURTOFcS^PPEAL<

^ /> APR 17 2015

^TullD -TD&e&z FA&>/r)6> .

I/, Abe' Acosta, Clerk

T7fc ^5TPrTK OF T£x/K5

RECEIVED IH

ffo/n AfifimC /i/o: j^lsZ^^qq^L^^70F cmmiapp^ls

T&AC&M1& /i/Os- ££777 APR 15 2015

Mt/i/T fiou/im .7£>r&5 Ab@S Acosta, Clark

ff/t^r/nar?M Fb£ £xt&v£/da) oF77/?i£-rD 7/Ar

P^m2M^^2£.J2^d^IM/imZ /^y/^J

ID T?f£ IkA)0&bbt£ JUDa^S (0F77^d^yer^F^^/>/Kl/f79^^s

£&/71g5 A)m)j ZTu/jD T%g&tt /^AY^mn. /^ry77DA/^e, A*&//?/£s irXts

/%OTlb/0 &>£ A?J £x77305/t>/\) £>F^;Xry &OJ tzfa&sWA^/^ -?2> F/£t/I

^5%ZZ0AJ 7%£pz#F77t>/VA&y &M&0, ST/USum/eT- #/* 77?as /fa>77£>A/

X,

MLOJra>a/urV ,*/ &kt£E /tTP, /2K7-22', ^ r~y/£zf ^T?mr^ 72?r/}~^ v,

nr.

-FherPZtS&ur d&T&tL/AJE Fbe F///M3 ~fh& F£77/7M /^^D?£&^w*zy H&jiem t<> AP&// ^b,?^/^. -the F/rr777i>/i'&e /f^z A/oF^^^m

Titers i P&T7f70/uzae coAs JiastM?r/F/^'Mwrrftz timers^^/^paJ

Q
#### Tuua v. State

25328

04/28/2004

Affirmed
September 16, 2003

24771

#### GMP Associates, Inc. v. Board of Water Supply, City and County of Honolulu

Affirmed
**Exhibit 32.2**
*CERTIFICATIONS*
I, Timothy Sherlock, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ARI Network Services, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this quarterly report; and 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this quarterly report.
Date: June 14, 2005         By:                    /s/ Timothy Sherlock   By:Timothy Sherlock Title:   Chief Financial Officer   
This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.