alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-08-00188-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

McALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

ANNA M. RUBIO, Appellee.

On appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

This case is before the Court on a joint motion to reverse and remand for further

consideration by the trial court. The parties have reached an agreement with regard to the

disposition of the matters currently on appeal. Pursuant to agreement, the parties request

this Court to reverse, without regard to the merits, the trial court’s order denying the

appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction and remand this case for further action by the trial court.
2

We REVERSE the trial court’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction

without reference to the merits, and REMAND this case to the trial court for further

proceedings in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(2)(B),

43.2(d).

In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the party

incurring same. 

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 23rd day of October, 2008.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4631 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4631

 To require quarterly reports on agency conferences and meetings, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2012

  Mr. Walsh of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Long, Mr. Michaud, and Mr. 
    Paul) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require quarterly reports on agency conferences and meetings, 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 ``Government Spending Accountability 
Act of 2012'' or the ``GSA Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. AGENCY REPORTS ON CONFERENCES AND MEETINGS.

    (a) Quarterly Reports Required.--Not less frequently than 
quarterly, the head of each agency shall submit a detailed, itemized 
report to the relevant committee of Congress on any conference or 
meeting that occurs at a location for which the agency must pay a fee 
or at a location not owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the 
Federal Government and--
            (1) that is attended by 50 or more employees; or
            (2) for which the total cost is $100,000 or more.
    (b) Exclusions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any 
conference or meeting that the head of an agency determines--
            (1) that reporting on such conference or meeting would not 
        be in the interest of national security; or
            (2) is necessary because of an imminent threat to health or 
        safety or other emergency.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the meaning given that 
        term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
            (2) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given 
        that term in section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 2354

CARLA T. LEWIS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. ROY SMITH, AIC

- VPIA; VIRGINIA PROPERTY INSURANCE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. ( 3:20

- cv - 00546

- MHL )

Submitted : April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Carla T. Lewis , Appellant Pro Se. Gary Robert Reinhardt , KALBAUGH, PFUND & MESSERSMITH, PC , Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM:
Carla T. Lewis appeals the district court’s order s dismissing Lewis’ complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and denying reconsideration. * On appeal, we
confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because
Lewis ’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, she has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order s
. See Jackson v. Lightsey , 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”)

. Accordingly, we affirm the
court’s orders. We further deny Lewis’ “motion to reintegrate appellate brief” and motions
for entry of default judgment . 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

* With respect to the first order, b ecause the district court dismissed Lewis’ action “for procedural reasons unrelated to the contents of the pleadings,” we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc ’ y, Inc. , 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC , 959 F.3d 605, 611

- 12 (4th Cir. 2020) (discussing factors courts consider in determining whether order is final and appealable).
### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS WASHINGTON, DC

TRAVEL GROUP, INC., D/B/A REPUBLIC AIR TRAVEL AND SCOT SPENCER AIRLIFT GROUP, INC. AND RICHARD BERNARD UnauthorizedAir Transportation, Unfair andDeceptivePractices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules 

### EXPRESS ONE INTERNATIONAL, INC. Unfair andDeceptive Practices and UnfairMethods of Competition, and Violations of Public CharterRules 

### Enforcement Proceeding

STATUS REPORT DOT-OST-1995-272 formerly Docket 49233

The Office ofthe Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings ("Enforcement Office"), pursuantto Your Honor's March 22, 2006, Order staying this proceeding, files this report detailing the current status ofthis proceeding and settlement negotiations. The Department has not ruled onthe outstanding motions filed by Respondents and opposed bythe Enforcement Office in Ascend Aviation Group, Docket OST-2004- 17486.2 There have been no further settlement discussions. Date: September 30, 2014
Respectfully submitted, 

# dd7ftf(/iaA/2&-**~~ane** Workie Acting Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings
Vinh Q. Nguyen Senior Trial Attorney United States Department ofTransportation Office ofAviation Enforcement and Proceedings 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Room 96-429 Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: 202-366-9342 FAX: 202-366-71523 Docket No. DOT-OST-1995-272 I hereby certify that on this 30th day ofSeptember, 2014, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Status Report was served in the following manner to the following: Original U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building Ground Floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590 By First Class Mail The Honorable Ronnie A. Yoder ChiefAdministrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation Washington, D.C. 20590 TEL: (202) 366-2142 FAX: (202) 366-7536 By First Class Mail Scot Spencer SBD Aircraft Services 255 S Leland Norton Way Sam Bernardino, CA 92408 Scot Spencer 22604 Esplanada Circle Boca Raton, Florida 33433
NO. 2014-CV-7001705-D2

NORTHTOWN DEVELOPMENT, INC. § IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

And GATEWAY CENTENNIAL §

DEVELOPMENT, CO. (Successors-in- §

Interest to Trautmann Investment §

Properties, Ltd.), § 

 Plaintiffs § 

§

V. § 111

TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

§

CIT YOF LAREDO, §

Defendant § WEBB COUNTY, TEXAS 

NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 

 NOW COMES DEFENDANT CITY OF LAREDO and files this Notice of Appeal from the 

trial court’s Order dated November 12, 2015, pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §51.014(a)(8) 

and would respectfully show the Court the following: 

Defendant hereby appeals this Court’s denying of Defendant’s plea to the jurisdiction as 

detailed in the 111

th Judicial District’s order signed on November 12, 2015 (Exhibit A) to the Fourth 

Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas. This notice was filed prior to the deadline for filing this Notice 

of Appeal, which is twenty (20) days from the date the trial court signed the challenged order. 

 Pursuant to Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem Code §51.014(b), this interlocutory appeal stays the 

commencement of trial in this case and all other proceedings. The City’s plea was filed pursuant to the 

court’s scheduling order. 

Filed

11/20/2015 11:04:24 AM

Esther Degollado

District Clerk

Webb District

Ana Hernandez

2014CV7001705D2

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 11/20/2015 3:08:34 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

IVONNE MENDOZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIDLAND CREDIT 

MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

EP-20-CV-24-PRM

ORDER TO RETAIN LOCAL COUNSEL

On this day, the Court sua sponte considered the above-captioned cause. 

Plaintiff Ivonne Mendoza and Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. 

have not yet retained local counsel for this action. Accordingly, the Court finds 

that the parties should each retain a member of the Bar of this Court, who 

maintains an office within the El Paso Division of the Western District of Texas, 

as co-counsel with the authority to act as attorney of record for all purposes.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff Ivonne Mendoza and 

Defendant Midland Credit Management, Inc. RETAIN local counsel as soon as 

possible, but in no event later than April 13, 2020.

SIGNED this 12th day of March, 2020.

______________________________________

PHILIP R. MARTINEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-00024-PRM Document 10 Filed 03/12/20 Page 1 of 1
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ivan Veras, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s contention that the comment of the prosecutor on summation deprived him of a fair trial was not preserved for review and we find no reason to exercise our discretion to reach the issue in the interest of justice. The sentence imposed was not harsh and excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kubiniec, J.—robbery, second degree.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498

**ME MORA**  **NDUM** SUBJECT: Heavy- Duty Hy brid Onboard Diagnostics FROM: Am y Kopin TO: The Docket DATE: July

15 , 2011 

### On June 8 th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Eaton to discuss concerns raised by Eaton regarding heavy - duty onboar d diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing. Specifically , they have requested a delay

of the application of HD OBD requirements for hy brid applications until 2020. Concerns were raised c oncerns during the comment period for the heavy- duty greenhouse gas n otice of proposed rulemaking that heavy- duty hy brid applications may

not be able to meet the 2013 heavy- duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking . 1 , 2 

### Attendees from the EPA and Eaton are shown in the table below. **Attendee Affiliation**  Cleophas Jackson EPA

– Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division Anthony Neam EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Amy Kopin EPA

– Assessment and Standards Division Ian McKenzie Eaton

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenh ouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2010 - 12 - 29/html/2010 - 32726.htm 2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air P ollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy - Duty Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy - Duty Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds ,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd - obd - frm - 02 - 24 - 09 - notice - 74 - fr - 8310.pdf OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
Exhibit 31       Rule 13a-14(d) Certification



                                            CERTIFICATION

I, Thomas G. Lehmann,  President of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp.,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on Form 8-K
containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of WaMu Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-AR3;

2. Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a whole,
does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and servicing, or
similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in these reports;

4. Based on my knowledge and upon the annual  compliance  statement  included in
the report and required to be delivered  to the trustee in  accordance  with the
terms of the  pooling  and  servicing,  or  similar,  agreement,  and  except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations  under the
servicing agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the report provided
by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers or similar
procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
that is included in these reports.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated third parties acting as servicers
and sub-servicers:




None


Dated: March 30, 2006

                                     /s/ Thomas G. Lehmann
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                     Thomas G. Lehmann,
                                     President
Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

SCPW-12-0000017 

06-MAR-2012 

10:00 AM 

NO. SCPW-12-0000017
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
 

CHRIS GRINDLING, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

THE HONORABLE SHACKLEY F. RAFFETTO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT


COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent. 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(S.P.P. NO. 10-1-0011)
 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
 

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of
 

the February 21, 2011 order denying the petition for writ of
 

mandamus,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for
 

reconsideration is denied.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 6, 2012. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 6 A1 30 6 . DARRELL CLOW ERS v . LI NDA W I LLI A MSON et a l

.

Darrel l Cl o wers fi l ed s u it ag ai n s t Li n da W il l iam s o n , Dav i d Hard i ng , an d t h e

M et ro p o l i t an At l an t a Rap i d T r a nsit A uthor ity

. T h e t ri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed t h e co m p l ai nt

o n No v em

b er 2 5, 2 0 1 5 b as ed o n Cl o w ers ’ fai l u re t o co m p l y w i t h a p r e -t ri al o rd er.

A f t er t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed Cl o wers ’ “ Mo t i o n t o Rei n st at e Cas e An d Vacat e O r d e r

Di s m i ssing P la intif

f’ s Cas e,” Cl o wers fi l ed an em erg en cy m o t i on fo r reco n s id erat i o n.

Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e m o t i o n o n J an u ary 28

, 20 1 6

, an d Cl o w ers s eek s t o ap p eal

t h i s ru li n g

.

A n o t i ce o f ap p eal m

u s t b e fi l ed wi t h i n 30 d ay s of t h e en t ry of t h e o rd er s o u g ht

t o b e ap p eal ed

. OCGA § 5 -6 -3 8 (a). “ Th e p ro p er an d t i m el y f i l i n g o f a n o t i ce o f

ap p eal is an ab s o l u t e req u i rem en t t o co n fer ju ri s d i ct i o n u p o n an ap p el lat e co u r t .”

Per l ma n v. Per l ma n

, 3 18 Ga. Ap p

. 7 3 1

, 7 3 9 (4 ) (7 3 4 SE2 d 5 6 0) (2 0 1 2) (ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n om i t t ed ). In s t ead of fi l i n g a ti m el y n o ti ce of ap p eal fro m t he tri al co urt ’ s

No v em b er 2 0 1 5 d i s m i s s al o rd er, Cl o wers fi l ed a m o t i o n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n. Bu t t h e

d en ial o f a m ot io n fo r reco n s i d erat i o n i s n ot d i rect l y ap p eal ab l e, an d t h e fi l i n g o f s u ch

a m o t i o n d o es n o t ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r fi l i n g an ap p eal

. See Bel l v. Co h r a n

, 2 4 4 Ga.

Ap p

. 5 1 0

, 5 1 1 (5 3 6 SE2 d 1 8 7 ) (2 0 0 0); Sa va ge v. News o me

, 1 7 3 Ga. Ap p. 27 1 (3 2 6

SE2 d 5 ) (1 9 85 ). Becau s e Cl o w ers fai l ed t o fi le a n o t ice o f ap p eal wi t h i n 3 0 d ay s o f

t h e en t ry o f t h e ap p eal ab l e j u d gm en t

, we l ack ju ri s d ict i o n o v er t h i s ap p eal

, wh i ch i s

h ereb y DISM ISSED. April 15, 2016C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a tr u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

.

W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 04/15/2016
----

**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**

| (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. |

|   |  /s/                William D. Edwards, Jr.      |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|
|   | William                D.                Edwards, Jr. |
|   | President                                             |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.

vs.

INTEL CORPORATION, INTEL

CORPORATION, PARKERVISION, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00108-ADA

ORDER RESETTING Pretrial PRETRIAL Conference CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is reset for

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE in Courtroom 5, on the Sixth Floor, United States Courthouse,

501 West Fifth Street, Austin, Austin TX, on Thursday, January 19, 2023 at 09:30 AM.

Reset

IT 13th day of January, 2023.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 257 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 1
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 26, 2019

No. 04-19-00357-CR

Marcus IDROGO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-07-159-CRW

Honorable Russell Wilson, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The court reporter’s second notice of late record is noted. We order the court reporter, 

Leticia Escamilla, to file the reporter’s record in this appeal by September 23, 2019. The court 

reporter is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely request that 

(1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, and (2) provides the court 

reasonable assurance that the record will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. The court does not generally consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary 

circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court