alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas April 25, 2022 No. 04-21-00530-CR Rosemary Lynn BRYAN , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CR5923W Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R On March 23, 2022, we abated this case, remanded the case to the trial court, and ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant was indigent, and whether counsel abandoned the appeal. The trial court held the hearing and determined appellant desired to prosecute the appeal and counsel had not abandoned the appeal. Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has now filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant, informed appellant of her right to review the record and file her own brief, informed appellant of her right to seek discretionary review should the court of appeals declare the appeal frivolous, and provided appellant with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the record request motion provided to her by her counsel. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ordershe do so by May 25, 2022 . If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance pending further order of the court . See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80–82 (1988) (holding that motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record to determine whether counsel’s evaluation thatappeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State , 252 S.W.3d 403, 410–11 (Tex. Crim. App.

2008).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of April, 2022.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-30129 Summary Calendar

IN THE MATTER OF: MAURINE F. ROOHANI,

Debtor.

MAURINE F. ROOHANI,

Appellee,

versus

LOUISIANA STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE COMMISSION and LOUISIANA OFFICE OF STUDENT

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE,

Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CV-3649) ( July 13, 1995 )

Before KING, JOLLY and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts and

relevant portions of the record itself; and as a result thereof

have concluded that the findings and conclusions of the bankruptcy

judge in his memorandum opinion of July 19, 1994, which has beenwjl\opin\95-30129.opn hrd 2 affirmed by the district court on appeal by its Order of January 3,

1995, are not clearly erroneous and the judgment of the district

court is therefore AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGiON IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 February 24, 2012 Steve luff Rio Bravo Poso 19100 Von Karman

,Suite 570 Irvine, CA 92612 Re: Completeness Determination
for Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Modification for Rio Bravo Poso (Poso) Dear Mr. luff: This letter concernsthe application completeness status of Rio Bravo Poso

‘s application for amodification

toPSD Permit #SJ 85-06 issued toRio Bravo Refining Company (Rio Bravo) onOctober 22, 1986. The application requests that Poso be permitted
toburn clean cellulosic biomass
in addition
tothe currently permitted fuels of natural gas, coal, petroleum coke and tirederived fuel. The first PSD application materials weredated and received by this office on May 17, 2010. These materials and supplemental information pQy1ddhyR1a Rravo wei-e +1ecestry ftn---pmcsoiiiihitiamendments

tofSD Permit #SJ 85-06 onDecember 13, 2010 and August 29, 2011. Additional information relating tothis modification wassubmitted onnumerous occasions. Pursuant
to40 CFR 124.3, EPA determined the application

tobe complete on February 24, 2012. If youshould have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Omer Shale’ at (41 5 972-3 538.
Sincerely, Gerardo
C. Rios, Chiec, Permits Office cc:Dr. Ted Guth Maynard Adams, Rio Bravo Poso Bill Rossiter, Rio Bravo Poso
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXA NITA RUSSELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas limited partnership; JOHN AND MARY DOES, 1

- 100,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 13

- 15169

D.C. No. 1:11

- cv

- 00277

- HG

- KSC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Hawaii Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 13, 201 8 **

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Alexa Nita Russell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claim s arising from a pending

foreclosure of real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)( 2). 

# FILED

FEB 23 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 13

- 15169

review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

,

656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011 ) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Russell’s action because Russell failed

to allege facts sufficient to “state a claim that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 677

- 78 (2009) (explaining that “a pleading that offers labels

and conclusions” or “naked assertions devoid of furt her factual enhancement” is

insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss (citation

, internal quotation marks , and

alterations omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Russell leave to

include previously abandoned claims in the third amended complaint because

amendment would have been futile. See Chodos v. West Publ’g Co. , 292 F.3d 992,

1003 (9th Cir. 2002) ( district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is

particularly broad when it afforded plaintiff one or more opportunities to amend ).

The district court properly denied Russell’s motion to remand the action to

state court because the district court had subje ct matter jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, and the action was p roperly removed under 28 U.S.C

.

§ 1441. See D

- Beam Ltd. P’ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc. , 366 F.3d 972, 974

n.2 (9th Cir 2004) (denial of a motion to remand a removed case is reviewed de

novo).3 13

- 15169

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters

not specific ally and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett

v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009 ).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  136,843
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,267
<INVENTORY>                                    125,370
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               279,290
<PP&E>                                         518,269
<DEPRECIATION>                                 181,452
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 712,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          119,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           262
<OTHER-SE>                                     247,265
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   712,464
<SALES>                                        818,614
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               818,614
<CGS>                                          638,982
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  638,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,742
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,042
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 65,848
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,857
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (5,061)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,930
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47


</TABLE>
# Notes

Creating a Culture of Health in Appalachia: Disparities and Bright SpotsJuly 2018Bright Spots Report Source DataThe data and source information in this file were created for the Identifying Bright Spots in Appalachian Health: Statistical Analysis report, which is one of four quantitative and qualitative research reports in "Creating a Culture of Health in Appalachia: Disparities and Bright Spots."Table 3 contains information on the sources of the data used in the study.Funding for this project was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Appalachian Regional Commission. The nonprofit Foundation for a Healthy Kentucky was the grantee and fiscal agent for the project. PDA, Inc., in Raleigh, North Carolina, prepared this report in collaboration with the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Appalachian Regional Commission.

# Data Sources
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-29011]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 5, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 27, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 162 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-150, CP2024-156.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-29011 Filed 1-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent tothe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Forms S-8 No. 333-42533, No. 333-86001, No. 333-62734 and No. 333-100011 (pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan and the 1998 Stock Option Plan, as amended and restated, and the2002 Stock Option Plan), Forms S-3 No. 333-33710, No. 333-51250, No. 333-53538, No. 333-112513 and No. 115281 and Form S-1 No. 333-129086 of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated February 20, 2004 with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Titan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2003 included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Palo Alto, California 

March 14, 2006
# C_2009233EN.01001503.xml

| 26.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/15

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 July 2009 — infeurope v Commission

(Case T-176/08) (1)

1

(Action for declaration of failure to act, for annulment and for damages - Public service contracts - Call for tenders concerning the maintenance of OHIM’s computer systems - Administrative appeal before the Commission - Implied Commission decision to dismiss - New claims - Connection between the action for a declaration of failure to act and the action for damages - Manifest inadmissibility)

2009/C 233/27

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: infeurope (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N.Bambara and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

First, APPLICATION for a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully failed to annul the decision to award framework contracts under the tendering procedure AO/042/05 of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) for software maintenance relating to OHIM core business systems on trade marks and designs, and to terminate the specific contracts concluded under those framework contracts and, in the alternative, APPLICATION for annulment of the alleged implied decision of the Commission to dismiss the applicant’s administrative appeal of 2 December 2007 in the context of that tendering procedure and, secondly, APPLICATION for compensation for the harm allegedly suffered as a result of the alleged unlawful omissions on the part of the Commission.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | infeurope shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

infeurope shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

| 3. | It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene submitted by European Dynamics SA. |
| --- | --- |

3.

It is not necessary to rule on the application to intervene submitted by European Dynamics SA.

| 4. | infeurope, the Commission and European Dynamics shall bear their own costs in connection with the application to intervene. |
| --- | --- |

4.

infeurope, the Commission and European Dynamics shall bear their own costs in connection with the application to intervene.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, of 5.7.2008.

1

---
# C_2013156EN.01003101.xml

| 1.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/31

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2013 — Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores v Commission

(Case T-417/08) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Copyright relating to public performance of musical works via the internet, satellite and cable retransmission - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Sharing of the geographic market - Bilateral agreements between national collecting societies - Concerted practices precluding the possibility of granting multi-territory and multi-repertoire licences - Proof - Presumption of innocence)

2013/C 156/53

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CRL (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: M. Favart, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers (CISAC) (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by J.-F. Bellis and K. Van Hove, lawyers); and European Broadcasting Union (EBU), (Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by D. Slater, Solicitor, and D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CR; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC), in so far as it concerns Sociedade Portuguesa de Autores CR;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 313, 6.12.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 21 to Buckhead America Corporation
                          December 31, 1998 Form 10-KSB


                          BUCKHEAD AMERICA CORPORATION
                            (A Delaware Corporation)

                              SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES
                             As of December 31, 1998


                              Delaware Corporations
                              ---------------------

                               BLM Virginia, Inc.
                                 BLM Prime, Inc.
                            CHI - Sandy Springs, Inc.
                           BAC Hotel Management, Inc.
                              BLM EB Orlando, Inc.
                                  BLM EB, Inc.
                                 CHI Dixie, Inc.
                              BLM EB Daytona, Inc.
                                   BLM-F, Inc.
                                  BLM-RH, Inc.
                                  BLM-RF, Inc.
                              BAC Franchising Inc.


                                Texas Corportion
                                ----------------
                         Country Hearth Inns/Texas, Inc.


                               Georgia Corporation
                               -------------------
                       Country Hearth Inns - Dalton, Inc.

                                Ohio Corporations
                                -----------------
                          The Lodge Keeper Group, Inc.
                 Integrated Motel Management Group of Ohio, Inc.
                                  HOMANCO, Inc.
                             LKG Development I, Inc.
.I 

S8d .tO this. d8ptWtElOnt, 

wing question: 

now oonstitute a part 0r the3 

oo0 purwant to Article 

poyslefit or these bonds to the 

urns tr,:s ansu&lon there were a few 

p/nrticii;ation wns only partial, during 

-t‘~kLch el;ze t>a ccunty 1CmieJe a%ax for the pcapose or payin 

2%'>ortfon of tk:c dabt raqdrewmt, with the mxU.t ticat thara . 

hns cccuzulnted e scz of alg1-orirmtely $35,000 i&the sinkl~ -*.-.'i L Le... croeted :or the retL-ment of these bonUs. 
^ 

, 

Yz. C. Burtt Potter, lkzrch 20, 1939, page 2 

The tsr=le unier which the States has undertaken 

to pzy off boxxk vote8, the proceeds of which have been spent 

on designated State higbweys, by their wry nature require 

thzt a county or road district'cont inue secondarily liable 

for the payment of that inecbtedness inasmuch as the State 

ke.9 merely a ss~zxa~ the -peyzLent thereo?. E6ch biennium the 

Legislature appropriates from the State Treasury R sum sufficient to meet its propc rtionate part of-the debt so assumec, 

snd while it is an unlikely contingency, it is entirely possible 

t&t et some future date the Legislature~mey fail.to appropriate 

the money ror thispurpose. "Accordingly, it .would fall to the 

lot or the county or road district to provide funds for the 

.purpose'of meeting the debt requirements for that year, end in . 

.'- the event 3 levy had not.been made of a sinking fund ha8 not 

theretofore been created,' the county or road district would 

be in default on the payments due at t+t,,time. : 

" In. our opinion the moneyaccumulated in the sink-- 

' 'ir?g Lund by Road Districts 1, 3 and.5, 'should be he14 intact for. 

the purpose of mesting such a contingency,'and'tbat the 'county 

or road district would not be authorized to use this money for 

shy other-.purpc;e until all bonds and Interest due..thereon 

3ave been finallyretired and'disbharged: To otherwise use 

tb money.than for.the purpose fhr'which it was'cOlle'Ot8d 

woulfl in our opinion constitute a diversion of funds.-. 

Very truly yours 

ATT&RJ!?Y GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By (s) ClarenceA;;iFG 

,' 

CEC:S : 

.CEC:FO - ,. 

APPROVED' " 

(S) W. F, MOORE 

ATTORNEI GBNFRAL OF TEXAS. .
* 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

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60527

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WILLIE LEE JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:00-CR-105-1-LN 

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender, counsel for Willie Lee Johnson,

has moved for leave to withdraw from this appeal and has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Johnson has not filed a response. Our independent review of the

brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. 

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.