alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00725-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF E.S.R., JR., a Child

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015-PA-02014

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 11, 2017

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

From our initial review of the record it appeared that appellant attempts to appeal the trial 

court’s order of termination of parental rights. 

An appeal from such an order is accelerated. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002 (West 

2014). The trial court signed the order of termination on June 23, 2016. Because this is an 

accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due July 13, 2016. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b). A 

motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal was due on July 28, 2016. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 26.3. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace 

period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 
04-16-00725-CV

- 2 -

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26). But “once the period 

for granting a motion for extension of time under Rule [26.3] has passed, a party can no longer 

invoke the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Id.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file the notice of 

appeal on November 3, 2016. It thus appears that neither document was filed within the time 

allowed for filing a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. 

Therefore, on December 2, 2016, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by 

December 17, 2016, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant 

did not respond. 

It is therefore ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.3(a). 

PER CURIAM
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4816 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4816

 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the use of amounts 
 from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/
  Eradication Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 2018

Mr. Ted Lieu of California (for himself, Mr. Amash, Mr. Polis, and Mr. 
 Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the use of amounts 
 from the Asset Forfeiture Fund for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/
  Eradication Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Stop Civil Asset Forfeiture Funding 
for Marijuana Suppression Act of 2018''.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON USE OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE FUND FOR THE 
              DOMESTIC CANNABIS SUPPRESSION/ERADICATION PROGRAM.

    Section 524 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(e) Notwithstanding subsection (c) of this section, beginning in 
fiscal year 2019, and for each fiscal year thereafter, no amounts in 
the Fund may be used for the Domestic Cannabis Suppression/Eradication 
Program of the Drug Enforcement Administration, or any substantially 
similar program.''.

SEC. 3. NO AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF THE DOMESTIC 
              CANNABIS SUPPRESSION/ERADICATION PROGRAM.

    Notwithstanding section 981(e) of title 18, United States Code, no 
property may be transferred to a Federal agency or a State and local 
agency, if that property is used for any purpose pertaining to the 
Domestic Cannabis Suppression/Eradication Program of the Drug 
Enforcement Administration, or any substantially similar program.

SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

    It is the sense of Congress that the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) expends a large amount of resources on enforcing 
prohibitions on marijuana. The comments of former DEA Administrator 
Chuck Rosenberg about the relative harm of marijuana support Congress's 
belief that the DEA's marijuana prohibition policy is an inappropriate 
use of resources.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 2, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 1

[REG-112916-23]
RIN 1545-BQ90


Statutory Disallowance of Deductions for Certain Qualified 
Conservation Contributions Made by Partnerships and S Corporations; 
Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of a notice of public hearing on a proposed 
rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document cancels a public hearing on proposed regulations 
concerning the statutory disallowance rule enacted by the SECURE 2.0 
Act of 2022 to disallow a Federal income tax deduction for a qualified 
conservation contribution made by a partnership or an S corporation 
after December 29, 2022, if the amount of the contribution exceeds 2.5 
times the sum of each partner's or S corporation shareholder's relevant 
basis.

DATES: The public hearing scheduled for January 3, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET 
is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vivian Hayes of the Publications and 
Regulations Section, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and 
Administration) at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A notice of proposed rulemaking and a notice 
of public hearing that appeared in the Federal Register on November 20, 
2023 (88 FR 80910) announced that a public hearing being held in person 
and by teleconference was scheduled for January 3, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET. 
The subject of the public hearing is under 26 CFR part 1.
    The public comment period for these regulations expired on December 
20, 2023. The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public 
hearing instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing 
to submit a request to testify and an outline of the topics to be 
addressed by December 20, 2023. We did not receive a request to testify 
at the Public Hearing. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for 
January 3, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET is cancelled.

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor,
Section Chief, Publications and Regulations Section, Associate Chief 
Counsel, (Procedure & Administration).
[FR Doc. 2023-28793 Filed 12-29-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Map Created: March 2014

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2008–2012

High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2008–2012

(County Rates)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The map uses 

natural breaks in the distribution to organize the data into groups 

of common values. 

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

55.5% - 71.7%

71.8% - 78.2%

78.3% - 84.4%

84.5% - 93.1%

Completion Rate 

U.S. average = 85.7%

Appalachian average = 84.1%

(Natural Breaks Classification)
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-001-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
 
    We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
of Monaco Coach Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 33-76372) of our report dated
January 31, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Monaco Coach Corporation as of December 28, 1996
and December 30, 1995, and for the years ended December 28, 1996, December 30,
1995 and December 31, 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K.
 
                                          /s/ Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
 
Eugene, Oregon
 
March 18, 1997
* 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. 02-20259

Conference Calendar

 

EDWARD ROY NEWSOME,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHN JOSEPH SUTTER, Attorney,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CV-4556

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

August 20, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Edward Roy Newsome, Texas state prisoner #437698, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his complaint for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. In the complaint, Newsome alleged

claims of legal malpractice and breach of contract against an

attorney, John Joseph Sutter, retained by him to litigate a

personal injury claim. Newsome does not challenge the district

court’s determination that both he and Sutter were domiciled in
No. 02-20259 

-2-

the same state. Because Newsome has established neither

diversity of citizenship nor a federal claim, the district court

did not err in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.

Newsome’s motion entitled “Motion for Freedom of Information

Act” is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,772,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,073
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,826,535
<PP&E>                                         399,705
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,265,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          774,286
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       193,824
<OTHER-SE>                                    (18,655)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,265,584
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               181,094
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,960,170
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,042,947
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,699,954)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,769,954)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,699,954)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.30)


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of IVI Communications, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (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.



Date: January 11, 2004             /s/ Charles Roodenburg
                                   --------------------------------
                                   Charles Roodenburg, Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ERNIE J. PEREZ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

K ILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 20

- 15773

D.C. No. 2:18

- cv

- 02737

- MTL

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2021 * *
Submission Vacated March 9, 2021 Resubmitted January 14, 202 2 Phoenix, Arizona

Before: HAWKINS and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges, and CARDONE, ** * District Judge.

* 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).

*** The Honorable Kathleen Cardone, United States District Judge for the Western District of Texas, sitting by desig nation. 

# FILED

JAN 19 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

During the pendency of this appeal, we issued our opinion in Larson v. Saul

,

967 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2020). Joining the Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, we

held that the uniformed service s exception to the Windfall Elimination Provision

(“WEP”) of 42 U.S.C. § 415(a)(7) does not apply to the Civil Service Retirement

System (“C SRS”) pensions of dual

- status technicians of the National Guard. Id. at

921 , 926; see Babcock v. Comm’r of Social Sec. , 959 F.3d 210 (6th Cir. 2020),

Kientz v. Comm’r, SSA , 954 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2020), Martin v. Social Sec.

Admin., Comm’r , 903 F.3d 115 4 (11th Cir. 2018).

We held this case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s review o f

Babcock . The Supreme Court has recently affirmed the Sixth Circuit, holding that

“ civil

- service pension payments fall outside the Social Security Act’s uniformed

services exception because they are based on service in [a] civilian capacity .”

Babcock v. Kijazaki

, 20

- 480, 2022 WL 119605 , at *5 (Jan. 13, 2022). As a result,

Appellant , as a dual

- status technician of the National Guard, is subject to the WEP

and the resulting reduction of his pension payment

. See id

.

T he district court is AFFIRMED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4581 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4581

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop best practices 
for utilizing advanced passenger information and passenger name record 
  data for counterterrorism screening and vetting operations, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Screening and Vetting Passenger 
Exchange Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. PASSENGER SCREENING BEST PRACTICES.

    (a) In General.--Not later than 270 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop 
best practices for utilizing advanced passenger information and 
passenger name record data for counterterrorism screening and vetting 
operations.
    (b) Considerations.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall, to 
the greatest extent practicable--
            (1) make available to certain countries, including visa 
        waiver program countries under section 217 of the Immigration 
        and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1187), the best practices 
        required under subsection (a); and
            (2) provide assistance to such countries in implementing 
        such best practices.

            Passed the House of Representatives January 9, 2018.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4581

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop best practices 
for utilizing advanced passenger information and passenger name record 
  data for counterterrorism screening and vetting operations, and for 
                            other purposes.
```
# C_2010113EN.01004502.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/45

---

Order of the General Court of 3 March 2010 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — KODI Diskontläden (inéa)

(Case T-538/08) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)

2010/C 113/73

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: R. Manea, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: KODI Diskontläden GmbH (Oberhausen, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2008 (Case R 744/2008-4) concerning opposition proceedings between KODI Diskontläden GmbH and REWE-Zentral AG.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and shall each pay half of the costs of the defendant.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4689 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4689

     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
 Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of 
                               Nebraska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2017

Mr. Smith of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of 
 Reclamation within the Northport Irrigation District in the State of 
                               Nebraska.

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

SECTION 1. EARLY REPAYMENT OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 213 of the Reclamation 
Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 390mm), any landowner within the 
Northport Irrigation District in the State of Nebraska (referred to in 
this section as the ``District'') may repay, at any time, the 
construction costs of project facilities allocated to the landowner's 
land within the District.
    (b) Applicability of Full-Cost Pricing Limitations.--On discharge, 
in full, of the obligation for repayment of all construction costs 
described in subsection (a) that are allocated to all land the 
landowner owns in the District in question, the parcels of land shall 
not be subject to the ownership and full-cost pricing limitations under 
Federal reclamation law (the Act of June 17, 1902, 32 Stat. 388, 
chapter 1093), and Acts supplemental to and amendatory of that Act (43 
U.S.C. 371 et seq.), including the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (13 
U.S.C. 390aa et seq.).
    (c) Certification.--On request of a landowner that has repaid, in 
full, the construction costs described in subsection (a), the Secretary 
of the Interior shall provide to the landowner a certificate described 
in section 213(b)(1) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (43 U.S.C. 
390mm(b)(1)).
    (d) Effect.--Nothing in this section--
            (1) modifies any contractual rights under, or amends or 
        reopens, the reclamation contract between the District and the 
        United States; or
            (2) modifies any rights, obligations, or relationships 
        between the District and landowners in the District under 
        Nebraska State law.
                                 <all>
```