alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________
No. 01-30016

_____________________

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF LOUISIANA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CYNTHIA BRIDGES, Etc.; ET AL.,

Defendants,

CYNTHIA BRIDGES, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Revenue,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

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

USDC No. 00-CV-1614

_________________________________________________________________ September 10, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This case came to us from an order of the district court

certifying for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) its

order that the plaintiff American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

of Louisiana had standing to bring suit, and declining to abstain2

from deciding the case. We have reviewed the briefs and relevant

record, studied the issues presented, and heard argument from the

parties.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district judge may certify an

otherwise interlocutory order for immed iate appeal if the “order

involves a controlling question of law as to which there is

substantial ground for difference of opinion and [] an imme diate

appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation....” The appellate court has

discretion over whether to permit an appeal from such order. Id

.

“‘The discretion afforded the courts of appeal in reviewing

petitions for leave to bring § 1292(b) appeals has been likened to

that of the Supreme Court in controlling its certiorari

jurisdiction.’” P arcel Tankers, Inc. v. Formosa Plastics Corp.
,

764 F.2d 1153, 1156 (5th Cir. 1985), quoting C. Wright & A. Miller,

Federal Practice and Procedure § 3929, at 141 (1977).

If this court determines that it has accepted an interlocutory

appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) that is not suitable for such an

appeal, “it may vacate its order accepting appellate jurisdiction,

and remand the case to the di strict court.” P arcel Tankers
, 764

F.2d at 1156, citing United States v. Bear Marine Services
, 696

F.2d 1117 (5th Cir. 1983); Paschall v. Kansas Cit y Star Co. , 605

F.2d 403 (8th Cir. 1979); Moreau v. Tonry , 554 F.2d 163 (5th Cir.

1977). On further study, we have determined that the interlocutory3

appeal in this case was improvidently granted and that the bases

for an interlocutory appeal are not present.

We therefore DISMISS this appeal without prejudice to the

issues raised, should they come before this court again after a
final appealable order or judgment.

D I S M I S S E D.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5520 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5520

 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Vinylacetate-Vinylchloride 
                               copolymer.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Walberg introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the rate of duty on Vinylacetate-Vinylchloride 
                               copolymer.

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

SECTION 1. VINYLACETATE-VINYLCHLORIDE COPOLYMER.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Vinylacetate-       Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          Vinylchloride                                                     12/31/2015
                          copolymer (CAS
                          No. 9003-22-9)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3904.30.60)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

 Plaintiff 

-vMICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

W-20-CV-00455-ADA 

W-20-CV-00467-ADA 

W-20-CV-00459-ADA 

W-20-CV-00463-ADA 

ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR 

The Court previously appointed Dr. Joshua J. Yi to serve as a technical advisor on this 

case. The Court has reviewed Dr. Yi’s invoice for services through March 11, 2021 and finds the 

requested amount ($18,075.00) to be reasonable and necessary. As such, the Court ORDERS

payment to be promptly made as follows: 

Plaintiffs: $9,037.50 

Defendant: $9,037.50 

Dr. Yi will separately provide deposit instructions. 

SIGNED this 17th day of March, 2021. 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 6:20-cv-00459-ADA Document 56 Filed 03/17/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Ex parte LOVE.

No. 24927.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 14, 1950.

None on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*424GRAVES, Judge.

Relator is an inmate of the Texas Prison System, and desires his release therefrom on the following grounds:

He was convicted and given 2 years on a plea of guilty on March 4, 1947, for the offense of burglary, the sentence to begin on said date, the cause being No. 57,388 in' the Criminal District Court No. 2 of Harris *County.*Again, on March 4, 1947, in cause No. 57,272 in the same court, he was convicted upon a plea of guilty of attempted burglary and given a term of two years in the penitentiary, the sentence being made cumulative of No. 57,388 above. Again, on April 7, 1947, in cause No. 58,-111 in such court, relator was convicted of burglary upon a plea of guilty in the Criminal District Court of Harris *County*and given a term of two years in the penitentiary, such sentence being made cumulative of No. 57,272 above mentioned. Again, on April 7, 1947, in No. 58,107 in the Criminal District Court of Harris County, he plead guilty to the offense of felony theft and was sentenced to a term of two years in the penitentiary, such sentence being cumulative of No. 58,111 above. Again, on April 7, 1947, in cause No. 58,-109 in the same court, he plead guilty and was given a term of two years in the state prison, this sentence being cumulative with cause No. 58,107.

It is shown that relator’s record reflects that he has actually served 2 years, 9 months and 2 days; that he has earned 1 year, 9 months and 25 days, thus giving him a total time credit of 4 years, 6 months and 27 days. Under the computation of time for his discharge by the prison1 authorities, he is entitled to his discharge on March 8, 1953. However, it is his contention that he is legally entitled to but one cumulation and is therefore subject to discharge at the present time. To this we do not agree. It is shown that his first sentence was in cause No. 57,$88, beginning on' March 4, 1947, for two years. In No. 57,272 his sentence began at the termination of No. 57,388. Again, in No. 58,111 he received an additional two years and same was cumulative of No. 57,272. Again, a further two years received in No. 58,111 was to be cumulative of No. 57,272. Again, in No. 58,107, he received another two years to be cumulative of No. 58,111; and again, in No. 58,109, he received a two-year sentence to be cumulative of No. 58,-107.

We think that after the sentence in No. 57,388 was imposed, that each successive sentence begins when the previous conviction is served, and that relator is not entitled to his discharge until he shall have served these several cumulative sentences.

Thus believing, the relief prayed for herein is denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

JOHN EMMANUEL AND 

PHILIP EMIABATA,

Plaintiffs

v. 

RLJ EQUITIES LLC, AUSTEX 

TOWING/IMPOUND, AND J&J 

TOWING,

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-578-LY-SH

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiffs John Emmanuel and Philip Emiabata’s Complaint. Dkt. 1. The

undersigned Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

I. Background

On July 7, 2020, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a More Definite Statement regarding their 

claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by July 17, 2020. Dkt. 9. The Court also 

warned Plaintiffs that failure to comply with the Court’s Order would result in the Court 

recommending that their case be dismissed. Id. Plaintiffs failed to timely file a More Definite 

Statement and have not filed a statement as of the date of this Report and Recommendation.

A district court may dismiss an action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or to comply with 

any order of court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 

1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). Because Plaintiffs failed to abide by a Court Order and to prosecute 

their case, this lawsuit should be dismissed. 

Case 1:20-cv-00578-LY-SH Document 10 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 2
II. Recommendation

The undersigned therefore RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS John 

Emmanuel and Philip Emiabata’s lawsuit without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).

III. Warnings

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen 

(14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, 

except on grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to 

proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 

79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on July 21, 2020.

SUSAN HIGHTOWER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00578-LY-SH Document 10 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Richard K. Davidson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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.



|    |  |                               
|--- |  | ------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard K. Davidson       
|    |  | Richard K. Davidson           
|    |  | Chairman and                  
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer       
|    |  | Union Pacific Railroad Company



November 8, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Union Pacific Railroad Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Robert M. Knight, Jr., Executive Vice President - Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my
knowledge, 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.



|    |  |                                       
|--- |  | --------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Robert M. Knight, Jr.             
|    |  | Robert M. Knight, Jr.                 
|    |  | Executive Vice President - Finance and
|    |  | Chief Financial Officer               
|    |  | Union Pacific Railroad Company        



November 8, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5463 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5463

        To suspend temporarily the duty on Sethoxydim/Nicobifen.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

 Mr. Price of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To suspend temporarily the duty on Sethoxydim/Nicobifen.

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

SECTION 1. SETHOXYDIM/NICOBIFEN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        (5RS)-2-[(EZ)-1-    Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          (ethoxyimino)buty                                                 12/31/2015
                          l]-5-[(2RS)-2-
                          (ethylthio)propyl
                          ]-3-
                          hydroxycyclohex-2-
                          en-1-one (CAS No.
                          74051-80-2)
                          (Sethoxydim/
                          Nicobifen)
                          (provided for in
                          subhead
                          3808.93.05)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000092195
<NAME> SOUTHERN INDIANA GAS & ELECTRIC CO
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      680,304
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,451
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         107,495
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        48,607
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 841,857
<COMMON>                                        78,258
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            219,421
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 297,679
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     19,514
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           251,367
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                       14,400
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   31,795
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 227,102
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  841,857
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                       98,733
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             7,216
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      74,468
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      81,684
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         17,049
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 902
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  17,951
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,965
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,986
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        274
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   12,712
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        4,512
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          49,261
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                                     
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20072 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CURTIS LEE LINDSEY, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. CR-H-96-65-1

- - - - - - - - - - August 14, 1997 Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Curtis Lee Lindsey appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute. He argues that his guilty plea was involuntary, that his attorney performed ineffectively, that his sentence should not have been enhanced because the offense involved a firearm, and that the district court should have granted him a “new trial.” We decline to address Lindsey’s claim of ineffective counsel. See United States v. McCaskey , 9 F.3d 368, 380 (5thNo. 97-20072 -2- Cir. 1993). If Lindsey wishes to challenge counsel’s performance, he may do so in a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. As to Lindsey’s other arguments, we find no error and AFFIRM.
AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Joseph D. Clayton, Deceased.

Surrogate’s Court, Queens County,

November 25, 1957.

*64
      *Vincent Esposito*for Florence A. Clayton, petitioner.

*Arthur G. Warner,*special guardian for Judith L. Clayton, infant.

*Louis Lefkowitz, Attorney-General,*for Department of Mental Hygiene.

Anthony P. Savaeese, S.

Testator died on September 13, 1956 while a patient at Creedmoor State Hospital. An instrument dated March 28, 1955 has been offered for probate as his last will and testament. By its terms his entire estate is left to his surviving spouse. The special guardian of the testator’s infant daughter seeks to inspect the hospital records relating to the decedent. The Attorney-General of the State of New York opposes the motion on the ground that the records are confidential communications between patient and physician which are privileged under the provisions of the Mental Hygiene Law and section 352 of the Civil Practice Act.

Section 20 and subdivision 9 of section 34 of the Mental Hygiene Law create an exception to the privileged communication rules and provide for access to the records of a patient admitted to an institution under the control of the Department of Mental Hygiene upon an order of a judge of a court of record. *(Matter of Warrington [State of New York],*303 N. Y. 129.) Here the special guardian has a legitimate right, if not a duty, to' inspect the records because of the short time which elapsed between the date of the propounded instrument and the testator’s admission to the hospital. If the records contain information bearing upon the competency of the testator to make a will the special guardian should be given the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the court. Even in the absence of a contest the Surrogate before admitting a will to probate must be satisfied with the genuineness of the propounded instrument, the validity of its execution, and that *65the testator, at the time of executing it, was in all respects competent to make a will and under no restraint or undue influence. (Surrogate’s Ct, Act, § 144.) Accordingly, the motion is granted. The hospital records should be produced at the office of the Attorney-General, 80 Centre Street, New York City, at such time as may be mutually agreeable to the special guardian and the Attorney-General. Submit order on notice.
#### FEUERHELM v. STATE.

No. 25786.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 28, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense, is burglary; the punishment, five years.

The record, is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception.,

All the proceedings appear regular; and nothing being presented for our review, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5046 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on electromechanical ice shavers, 

with self-contained electric motor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. DEUTCH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on 

electromechanical ice shavers, with self-contained electric 

motor. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ELECTROMECHANICAL ICE SHAVERS, WITH 

4 SELF-CONTAINED ELECTRIC MOTOR. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.41 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 electromechanical ice shavers, with self-contained electric 

8 motor) is amended by striking the date in the effective 

9 period column and inserting ‘‘12/31/2015’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5046 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS