alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; Opinion Filed September 4, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00567-CV

REGINALD FORD, Appellant

V.

RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 471-03437-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Schenck, Osborne, and Partida-Kipness

Opinion by Justice Partida-Kipness

The filing fee, docketing statement, and clerk’s record in this case are past 

due. By postcard dated June 2, 2020, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was 

due. We directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also 

by postcard dated June 2, 2020, we informed appellant the docketing statement in 

this case was due. We cautioned appellant that failure to file the docketing statement 

within ten days might result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. 

By letter dated June 30, 2020, we informed appellant the clerk’s record had not been 
–2–

filed because appellant had not paid for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to 

provide, within ten days, (1) verification of payment or arrangements to pay for the 

clerk’s record, or (2) written documentation that appellant had been found entitled 

to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so 

would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. And by order 

dated July 15, 2020, we again directed appellant to provide verification that he had 

paid for the clerk’s record and cautioned him the appeal was subject to dismissal if 

he failed to do so. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, provided the required 

documentation, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this 

appeal.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c).

200567F.P05

/Robbie Partida-Kipness/

ROBBIE PARTIDA-KIPNESS

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

REGINALD FORD, Appellant

No. 05-20-00567-CV V.

RUSHMORE LOAN 

MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the 471st Judicial 

District Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 471-03437-

2019.

Opinion delivered by Justice PartidaKipness. Justices Schenck and 

Osborne participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is 

DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellee RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT 

SERVICES, LLC recover its costs of this appeal from appellant REGINALD 

FORD.

Judgment entered this 4th day of September, 2020.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
            August 14, 2007
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ RICHARD T. HUTTON, JR.Date
    
    
    
    
    
    Richard T. Hutton, Jr.Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
AFS-11-319-E 

June 14, 2011 

 Exemption No. 8597C 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2003-14802 

Mr. William J. Boone 

Vice President of Flight Operations 

Executive Airlines, Inc. 

P.O. Box 38082 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 00982 

Dear Mr. Boone: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 8597, 

as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated May 16, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Executive Airlines, Inc. (EA) for an extension of Exemption No. 8597, as amended. 

That exemption from § 121.481, 121.487, 121.489, and 121.491 of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) allows EA to conduct its operations out of San Juan, Puerto Rico, 

under part 121, subpart Q, Flight Time Limitations and Rest Requirements: Domestic 

Operations, rather than under part 121, subpart R, Flight Time Limitations: Flag Operations. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to EA. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 8597, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. 
 2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA 

Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 8597, as amended, to 

August 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James Gardner 

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards 

 Service
Cite as 2013 Ark. 351



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-11-486

CAROLYN DIANNE ZACHRY APPELLANT
V. RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION APPELLEE Opinion Delivered September 26, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 34CV-09- 99, HON. HAROLD S. ERWIN, JUDGE

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM On May 11, 2009, appellant Carolyn Dianne Zachry filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Jackson County Circuit Court. In her petition, appellant states that she is an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) at a facility in Jackson County. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant lodged this appeal. We dismiss the appeal because the Jackson County Circuit Court can no longer grant the relief requested by appellant. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction relief, including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Wilencewicz v. Hobbs , 2012 Ark. 230 (per curiam); Fudge v. Hobbs

, 2012 Ark. 80 (per curiam). Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Wilencewicz , 2012 Ark. 230; Davis v. Hobbs , 2012 Ark. 167 (per curiam). Appellant’s petition was not filed under Act 1780, and the public recordsCite as 2013 Ark. 351

of the ADC confirm that appellant is now incarcerated in a facility in Pulaski County. A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Chestang v. Hobbs , 2011 Ark. 404 (per curiam);
Buckhanna v. Hobbs , 2011 Ark. 119 (per curiam). When a prisoner who seeks habeas relief is transferred to a facility in a different county, the circuit court in the county where the prisoner was previously incarcerated no longer has jurisdiction to issue and make a returnable writ. Wilencewicz , 2012 Ark. 230. Although the Jackson County Circuit Court may have retained subject-matter jurisdiction, it does not retain personal jurisdiction over the person in whose custody the prisoner is detained, and an order by that court will not act to effect her release. Id. This court will dismiss an appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the appellant is no longer incarcerated in the county where her petition was filed because the court can no longer grant the relief sought. Id

. Appeal dismissed. J. Brooks Wiggins , for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel

, Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Argo Priest , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 12549
Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JOHN DAVID MELTON, a.k.a. David Melton,

Defendant

- Appellant.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 4:20

- cr

- 00081

- RSB

- BKE

- 4 USCA11 Case: 23-12549 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 12549

____________________ Before J ILL P RYOR , B RANCH , and L AGOA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: John David Melton appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to dismiss the indictment based on challenges

to a standing order regarding grand jury procedures utilized during the COVID

- 19 pandem ic. In his motion, Melton argued tha t the standing order violated his Fifth Amendment right to a grand jury and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 because it did not ensure grand jury secrecy, improperly permitted videoconferencing, and resulted in less than a quorum of the grand jurors being present in the same room. The government moves to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction , arguing that the district court’s order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine

. We conclude that the di strict court’s order is neither final nor immediately appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The order is not final because Melton has yet to be convicted or sentenced. See Flanagan v. United States , 465 U.S. 259, 263 (1984). And it is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it does not involve a right not to be tried , which means it can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment

. See United States v. Shalhoub , 855 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2017); Midland Asphalt Corp. v. Un ited States , 489 U.S. 794, 800, 802 (1989) ( stating that
, to be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment, an order USCA11 Case: 23-12549 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 2 of 323

- 12549 Opinion of the Court 3 must deprive a defendant not of the right not to be convicted, but of the right “ not to be tried at all ”).
To the extent Melt on argued that the standing order failedto ensure grand jury secrecy, that alleged violation does not implicate a right not to be tried because it is not “a defect so fundamental that it causes the grand jury no longer to be a grand jury, or the indictmen t no longer to be an indictment.” See Midland Asphalt Corp. , 489 U.S. at 802. Additionally , we recently held that to the extent the same standing order at issue here violated Rule 6, that violation is not a “fundamental error” that “change[s] the basic n ature of [the] grand jury or fatally infect[s] [the] indictment.” See United States v. Graham , 80 F.4th 1314, 131 7

- 1 8 (11th Cir. 2023).
The district court’s order is therefore not appealable at this time, under the collateral order doctrine or otherwise

. The government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. USCA11 Case: 23-12549 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 02/20/2024 Page: 3 of 3
#### George HENSON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald J. ANGELONE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7673.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 5, 2003.

George Henson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Office of the *214Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

George Henson, Jr., appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting his motion to supplement the record in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition but denying further relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. *See Henson v. Angelone,*No. CA-01-59 (E.D.Va. Oct. 18, 2002). 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.*
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
              By:
    /s/ MARK W. DURANDMark W. DurandSenior Vice President  Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 15 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 15

  To provide that professional baseball teams and leagues composed of 
           such teams shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

 Mr. Moynihan introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide that professional baseball teams and leagues composed of 
           such teams shall be subject to the antitrust laws.

    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 ``National Pastime Preservation Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    The Congress finds that--
            (1) the business of organized professional baseball is in, 
        or affects, interstate commerce; and
            (2) the antitrust laws should be amended to reverse the 
        result of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
        States in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National 
        League of Professional Baseball Clubs, 259 U.S. 200 (1922), 
        Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc., 346 U.S. 356 (1953), and 
        Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), which exempted baseball 
        from coverage under the antitrust laws.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL.

    The Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
end the following new section:
    ``Sec. 27. (a) In General.--Except as provided in Public Law 87-331 
(15 U.S.C. 291 et seq.) (commonly known as the `Sports Broadcasting Act 
of 1961'), the antitrust laws shall apply to the business of organized 
professional baseball.
    ``(b) Application of Section.--This section--
            (1) shall apply to any agreement that is in effect on or 
        after the date of enactment of this section and to conduct 
        engaged in after that date in furtherance of that agreement or 
        in furtherance of any other object; but
            (2) shall not apply to conduct engaged in before that 
        date.''.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1744

To permit duty free treatment for certain structures, parts, and components

used in the Gemini Telescope Project.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 13, 1996

Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To permit duty free treatment for certain structures, parts,

and components used in the Gemini Telescope Project.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN STRUCTURES, PARTS AND COMPO4 NENTS USED IN THE GEMINI TELESCOPES

5 PROJECT, MAUNA KEA, HAWAII.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury is

7 authorized and directed to admit free of duty after March

8 31, 1997, the following articles for the use of the Associa9 tion of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. in the

10 construction of the Gemini North Telescope, Mauna Kea,
2

•S 1744 IS

1 Hawaii, as part of the international Gemini 8-Meter Tele2 scopes Project:

3 (1) The telescope enclosure, produced by Coast

4 Steel Fabricators, Ltd., Port Coquitlam, British Co5 lumbia, Canada.

6 (2) The telescope structure assemblies, pro7 duced by G.I.E. Telas, Cannes le Bocca, France.

8 (3) The telescope mirror coating plant, pro9 duced by the Royal Greenwich Observatories, Cam10 bridge, United Kingdom.

11 (4) The telescope primary mirror, polished by

12 REOSC, Saint-Pierre-du-Perray, France.

13 (5) The telescope secondary mirror, produced

14 by Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany.

15 (6) The telescope acquisition, guiding, and

16 wavefront sensing equipment, produced by the Royal

17 Greenwich Observatories, Cambridge, United King18 dom.

19 (b) RELIQUIDATION.—If the liquidation of the entry

20 of any article described in subsection (a) has become final

21 before April 1, 1997, the entry shall, notwithstanding any

22 other provision of law, be reliquidated on April 1, 1997,

23 in accordance with the provisions of this section and the
3

•S 1744 IS

1 appropriate refund of duty made at the time of such re2 liquidation.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        OPUR1
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                       PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        62,801,059
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      16,048,547
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           16,146,316
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                            196,165
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   24,769,117
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  119,961,204
<COMMON>                                            976,921
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        10,341,571
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                              41,706,516
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   53,025,008
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                       1,445,600
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             41,656,859
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                        0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                            0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                     1,062,545
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                                 0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                               0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                          0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   22,771,192
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                   119,961,204
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        48,483,532
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                              7,962,349
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       39,463,805
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       47,426,154
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                           9,019,727
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               10,746,166
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                   19,765,893
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          2,173,496
<NET-INCOME>                                      9,564,996
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          65,052
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                     9,564,997
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2,324,665
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                                 0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                            9,280,541
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          1.58



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Consolidated Balance Sheets and Statements of Operations of AirNet Systems, Inc.
for the fiscal year ended  September  30, 1996  included in the Annual Report on
Form 10-K and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                      11,405,672
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,123,996
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,170
<INVENTORY>                                  5,195,917
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            26,690,995
<PP&E>                                      81,406,879
<DEPRECIATION>                              40,684,927
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              75,008,955
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,672,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       123,178
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,815,808
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                75,008,955
<SALES>                                      1,063,583
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            75,696,384
<CGS>                                        1,033,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               51,498,475
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            24,613,809
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,053,169
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,469,069)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (4,202,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,671,069)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,671,069)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>