alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed November 10, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-16-00204-CV

__________

JOSHUA OGLE, Appellant

V.

CSI INSPECTION, LLC; JEREMY A. LANE; BRENDA KAY 

JOHNSON; AND BOBBY CANNON, JR., Appellees

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-139,276-B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant has filed in this court a motion to dismiss this appeal. In the motion, 

Appellant states that the parties to this appeal have reached an agreement to 

compromise and settle their differences in this appeal. Appellant requests that we

dismiss this appeal and indicates that, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, each party

shall bear its own costs. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1. 
2

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

November 10, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1369 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren 

Lindley Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. BOREN (for himself, Mr. COLE, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. LANKFORD, and Mr. 

LUCAS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in Hartshorne, 

Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. WARREN LINDLEY POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 1021 Pennsylvania Avenue in 

6 Hartshorne, Oklahoma, as the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post Of7 fice’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1369 IH

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Warren Lindley Post 

3 Office’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Elvie SMITH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28006.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 1, 1956.

W. D. Brown, Quitman, for appellant.

James L. Hartsfield, County Atty., Quit-man, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for possession of beer in a dry area for the purpose of sale; the punishment, ten days in jail.

Appellant was tried before a jury upon a plea of not guilty. He was not represented by counsel.

After the verdict he employed counsel who, on July 29, 1955, gave notice of appeal to this Court.

A statement of facts was prepared by appellant’s counsel on the same day and presented to the County Attorney who refused to agree thereto.

The statement of facts found in the record was prepared by the trial judge and filed in the trial court on November 2, 1955.

Appellant challenges the consideration of the statement of facts on the ground that it was not filed within ninety days after notice of appeal was given, and insists that he is entitled to reversal of the conviction on the ground that he has been denied a statement of facts which can be considered by this Court.

The ninety days allowed for filing the statement of facts does not apply to the statement of facts prepared by the court when the parties cannot agree. Widener v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 256, 262 S.W.2d 400; Diggs v. State, 64 Tex.Cr.R. 122, 141 S.W. 100; Vansickle v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 188 S.W. 1006.

Appellant was arrested by two deputy sheriffs as he came to a parked truck carrying half of a 24 can Pearl Beer carton or case with 12 cans of beer in it.

The officers went into the wooded area some 100 yards, in the direction from which appellant came, and there found four 'full *431unopened cases of Pearl Beer and a Half case of beer which matched, and fitted the half case appellant was carrying when arrested, the case having been cut in two with a sharp instrument.

It was shown that the area where the beer was found and where appellant was arrested was in Wood County and that said area was. dry.

The jury rejected appellant’s explanation that he found the half case of beer while hunting.

The evidence, viewed in the light of the presumption arising under art. 667— 25(b) V.A.P.C., is sufficient to sustain the jury’s verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2138

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Eric Lawrence, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 27, 2009

Filed: December 4, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Lawrence appeals the sentence the district court1

 imposed after revoking

his supervised release, arguing that the 36-month prison term is unreasonable. Upon

careful review, we conclude the revocation sentence is not unreasonable. See 18

U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3); U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, cmt. n.4 (establishing a sentence above the

recommended revocation range may be warranted where the original sentence resulted

from a downward departure as a reward for substantial assistance); United States v.

Eagle Thunder, 553 F.3d 605, 608-09 (8th Cir. 2009) (holding a revocation sentence
-2-

above the advisory Guidelines range was not unreasonable where defendant

repeatedly violated supervised release); United States v. Tyson, 413 F.3d 824, 825

(8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (standard of review). 

We affirm the judgment of the district court, and we grant counsel’s motion to

withdraw. 

______________________________
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

128288(23) Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

LISA D. WYATT, Personal Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices William Nolan Wyatt, Deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 128288 

 COA: 258237 
 Wayne CC: 04-402043-NH

OAKWOOD HOSPITAL AND 

MEDICAL CENTERS, a/k/a

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE,

INC, and PARVEZ KAHN, M.D.,

 Defendants, 

and 

THOMAS AUSTIN CHAPEL, M.D., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s order of June 

17, 2005 is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, 

would grant leave to appeal. 

p1026 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 2, 2005 

Clerk
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke v. Jamil James Kantara

Appellate case number: 01-14-00082-CV

Trial court case number: 2011-46281

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Appellant, Mary Lynn Kantara Gerke, has filed a “Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand 

to Trial Court for Entry of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Attorney’s Fees” 

and an “Unopposed Amended Motion to Abate Appeal and Remand to Trial Court for Entry of 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Regarding Attorney’s Fees.” We grant appellant’s 

amended motion to abate and dismiss as moot appellant’s motion to abate.

By her motion to abate, appellant requested that we abate the appeal to allow “the trial 

court to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of the trial court’s award of 

attorney’s fees.” In her amended motion to abate, appellant states that the trial court signed the 

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on March 27, 2014. Appellant now requests 

that the Court “abate the appeal and remand to the trial court for a hearing on appellant’s motion 

to extend the post-judgment deadlines and for consideration of appellant’s request for additional 

findings of fact and conclusions of law.” We grant appellant’s amended motion to abate the 

appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court to immediately hold a 

hearing on appellant’s motion to extend post-judgment deadlines, or any other appropriate 

motion, and for consideration of appellant’s request for additional findings of fact and 

conclusions of law.

The trial court clerk is ordered to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing any orders 

on appellant’s motion to extend post-judgment deadlines or any other appropriate motion, and 

any additional findings of fact and conclusions of law within 45 days of the date of this order.

Appellant’s motion to abate appeal, filed on March 10, 2014, is dismissed as moot.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active 

docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket without further order of the 

Court when the supplemental clerk’s record is filed with this Court.
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 16, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1370 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1370

 To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 5, 2011

 Mr. Boustany introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the 
              Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL FEE ON HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDERS.

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is amended by 
striking section 9010.
                                 <all>
```
#### Leslie Earl CARTER, Petitioner, v. TEXARKANA BUS COMPANY, Inc., Respondent.

No. A-5987.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 31, 1956.

Harkness & Friedman, Texarkana, for petitioner.

Brown & Brown, Texarkana, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the Court of Civil Appeals has reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for retrial on the sole ground that the verdict in the amount of $10,000 awarded to the plaintiff in the trial court is excessive and contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. 292 S.W.2d 869.

Rule 440, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, formerly Article . 1862, R.C.S. of 1925, provides:

> “In civil cases'appealed to a Court of Civil Appeals, if such court is of the opinion that the verdict and judgment of the trial court is excessive and that said cause should be reversed for that reason only, then said appellate court shall indicate to such party, or his attorney, within what time he may file a remittitur of such excess. If such re-mittitur is so filed, then the court shall reform and affirm such judgment in accordance therewith; if not filed as indicated then the judgment shall be reversed.”

The Supreme Court has held this rule imposes a mandatory duty upon the Court of Civil Appeals. Wilson v. Freeman, 108 Tex. 121, 185 S.W. 993; Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Lightfoot, 139 Tex. 304, 162 S.W.2d 929; Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Farnsworth, 148 Tex. 584, 227 S.W.2d 1017.

*654The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is in conflict with these opinions of the Supreme Court. By authority of Rule 483, T.R.C.P., the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is reversed on' the application for writ of error, and the cause remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for compliance with Rule 440,

Reversed and remanded.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1495

RAYMOND ROMIG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Theodore D. Chuang , District Judge. ( 8:21

- cv - 01475 )

Submitted : September 13, 2024 Decided: October 3, 2024

Before AGEE and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges , and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: John M. Shoreman, MCFADDEN & SHOREMAN, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. John P. Markovs, County Attorney, Edward B. Lattner, Deputy County Attorney, Matthew H. Johnson, Associate County Attorney, Erin J. Ashbarry, Associate County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1495 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Raymond Romig appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s order. Romig v. Montgomery Cnty. , No. 8:21

- cv - 01475

- TDC (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2023) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-1495 Doc: 17 Filed: 10/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofiPCS, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), each of the undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/ Timothy M. Yager                                               |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Timothy M. Yager, President and Chief  Executive Officer           |
| May 16, 2005                                                       |
|                                                               |
| /s/ Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr.                                       |   |
| Stebbins B. Chandor, Jr., Executive Vice  President Operations and |
| Chief Financial Officer                                            |
| May 16, 2005                                                       |
|                                                                    |        |  |

 

----
#### Maria Guadalupe AGUIRRE et al., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 39261.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 9, 1966.

Joseph J. Rey, El Paso, for appellant.

*805W. Barton Boling, Dist. Atty., Jack N. Ferguson, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment forfeiting an appearance bond in the sum of $400.00.

No statement of facts accompanies the record. The transcript was filed in this Court on November 24, 1965, and appellant’s brief was filed on January 18, 1966. Rule 414, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure requires that appellant’s brief be filed in appellate court within 30 days after the filing of the transcript.

This Court is controlled by the Rules of Civil Procedure in bond forfeiture cases. Article 866, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., Sherrill v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 721; Hebert v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 255 S.W.2d 201; and Gaither v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 503, 244 S.W.2d 209, are authority for dismissing this appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 10 , 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00570

- CV

BILLY KALLUS , Appellant

V.
AUCTION.COM , Appellee

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 37654

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 7 , 2013. The clerk’s record
was filed September 26, 2013 . No reporter’s record was filed.

On November 26 , 2013, appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance
with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(a) and (i )

. In particular, appellant failed to provide adequate citations to the record. Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).2

On March 11 , 2014, we ordered appellant ’ s brief filed November 26 , 2013,
stric ken. Appellant was ordered to file a brief that complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten (10) days. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1

. Appellant was informed that if he filed another brief that did not comply with Rule 38, the Court may str ike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.9(a). Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, we may dismi ss the appeal for want of prosecution.
Appellant filed no response. Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


                            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 uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

(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.


November 29, 2006                                 By: /s/ NOLAN K. BUSHNELL
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  Nolan K. Bushnell
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
#### Diller B. GROFF, III, M.D., Plaintiff—Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-5705.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Aug. 7, 2002.

Before SUHRHEINRICH and BATCHELDER, Circuit Judges; LITTLE,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable F.A. Little, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.

This cause having come on to be heard upon the record, the briefs and the oral argument of the parties, and upon due consideration thereof,

It is ORDERED that the judgment of the district court be, and it hereby is, affirmed upon the opinion of the district court.
**EXHIBIT        31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

|                                 |                                        |                                  |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                                 |                                        |
|                            |                                   |                             |
| Date: May              17, 2006 | By:                               | /s/ Jon              H. Peterson |
|                                 | Jon H. Peterson                             |
|                                 | Title:              Chief Financial Officer |
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1837 Prepped byKeeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 179 ) IV-E-1 3 Docket Number: 

# A-84-3 3

Printed 11/14/2008 3:48:12 PM

Sheet 179 of 238P. 2

\ 

### \$mjS UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y \4_l\M_+> < 

### f WASHINGTON , D.C . 2046 0 * l PRO^ ° 

### Septembe r 1 , 198 7

OFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N



### MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Conversatio n wit h Roge rNelso n

an d Caro l Berry , Uta h International , o n Propose d NSR Surfac e Coa l Min e Rulemakin g Ne wDocke tEntry : Docke tNo . A-84-3 3 FROM : Barbar a Brow n

Offic e o fAi ran d Radiatio n TO : Centra l Docke tSectio n (LE-131 ) O n Septembe r1 , 1987 , I ha d a brie fdiscussio n wit h Roge rNelso n Uta h Internationa l (UI) , regardin g th e subjec trulemaking . I n respons e t o hi s question s o n th e rulemakin g status , I advise d hi m tha tEP Ai s continuin g it s interna l deliberations . I n addition , Caro l Berry , UI , discusse d effort s t o appl yEPA' s visibilit yworkboo k t o surfac e coa l mine s an d th e limitation s o fth e existin g workboo k becaus e i tcurrentl y lack s appropriat e emissio n factor s applicabl e t o surfac e coa l mines . cc : Kir t Co

x- Projec tOffice r
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 21 45

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Ch arl es Swift ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt
v. W al m art ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Dis tri ctof Ne br as ka- Om ah a

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 3, 2 01 6 Fi le d: Octo be r 6, 2 01 6 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re LOKEN, BOW MAN, an d M URPHY, Ci rcu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Ch arl es Swif

t ap pe al s th e di st ric t co u rt’s pr es erv ic e di sm is sa l wit ho ut 1 pr ejud ic e of hi s pr o se di ve rs ity co m pl ai nt
. The co urt di sm is se d th e co m pl ai nt aft er The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard G. Kop f, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1 of Nebr as ka
.Swif

t fai le d to co mp l y w i t h th e co urt’s or de r to pr ov id e ev id en ce of da m ag es su ffi ci en t to in vo ke di ve rs it y juri sd ic ti on . Hav in g care fu ll y co ns id ered th e reco rd , an d gi ve n th e wit ho ut -p reju di ce na tu re of th e di sm is sa l, we co nc lu de th e di stric t co urt di d n otab us e it s d is cret io n i n d is m is si ng wit ho utpre jud ic e. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm . See 8 th Cir . R. 47 B.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-