alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Texas

Austin Division

TIFFANY MCKAY, §

§

Plaintiff § CASE # 1:20-cv-00547-RP

§

v. §

§

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT §

RECOVERY CORPORATION §

§

& §

§

HARTFORD CASUALTY §

INSURANCE COMPANY §

§

Defendants. §

PLAINTIFF'S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Tiffany McKay hereby gives notice of dismissal of this suit 

with prejudice, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(A)(1)(i).

Respectfully submitted,

By: s/Tyler Hickle

Plaintiff’s Attorney

Tyler Hickle, SBN 24069916

Law Office of Tyler Hickle, PLLC

4005C Banister Lane, Ste. 120C

Austin, TX 78704

Tel: (512) 289-3831 Fax: (512) 870-9505

tyler@hicklepllc.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Tyler Hickle certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was 

sent to Defendant’s lawyer via email on August 28, 2020.

Case 1:20-cv-00547-RP Document 16 Filed 08/28/20 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Texas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Texas Dry Natural Gas Expected Future Production (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         | 43,591  | 43,264 |        |        |        | 40,574 | 38,711  | 38,167  | 38,381 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 38,192  | 36,174  | 35,093 | 34,718 | 35,974 | 36,542 | 38,270 | 37,761  | 37,584  | 40,157 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 42,082  | 43,527  | 44,297 | 45,730 | 49,955 | 56,507 | 61,836 | 72,091  | 77,546  | 80,424 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 88,997  | 98,165  | 86,924 | 90,349 | 97,154 | 78,866 | 81,224 | 105,618 | 126,131 | 113,736
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 102,370 | 133,169 |        |        |        |        |        |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### Elsie Montross et al., Plaintiffs, *v.*Walgreen Company of New York, Inc., Defendant.

City Court of the City of New York, Trial Term, New York County,

December 31, 1957.

*John P. Smith*for defendant.

*Robert J. Keegan, Jr.,*for plaintiffs.

James E. Mulcahy, J.

The case was tried before me without *a*jury. Findings were waived. The plaintiff Elsie Montross was at the time the alleged cause of action herein arose an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff John Montross is her husband. When the plaintiff Mrs. Montross finished work on February 19,1951 she ate a sandwich at a counter maintained by her employer. She paid for it but at a lesser rate than that ordinarily charged to nonemployee customers. The sandwich contained a wire which became embedded in the base of her tongue, with the result that she sustained personal injuries. Essentially her cause of action is for breach of warranty because, although an employee of the defendant she was also a customer. Her husband, of course, claims loss of services.

I do not reach the question whether the plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy here is under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. It is *319arguable that such is not the case, especially as the woman plaintiff was a customer of the defendant when she sustained her alleged injuries, having finished her day’s work and being free to eat wherever she chose.

However, the defendant gave due notice of the accident to its insurance carrier, which caused the matter to be scheduled for a hearing on two occasions before a referee of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. The evidence showed that due notice of such hearing, and indeed of the two hearings, was given to the woman plaintiff, who nevertheless failed to appear. Her husband’s alleged cause of action is, of course, derivative. By scheduling the case for hearing and giving the proper notice of hearing to the injured person, the Workmen’s Compensation Board acquired jurisdiction of her matter. Unfortunately, Mrs. Montross was not free to ignore the notice by simply defaulting. The Workmen’s Compensation Board may acquire jurisdiction in either of two ways: one, if the injured person files a claim; two, if the employer or the carrier brings the matter before the board and notice of hearing be duly given to the injured person. As hereinabove indicated, the board acquired jurisdiction in this instance in the second of these ways *(Doca*v. *Federal Stevedoring Co.,*280 App. Div. 940, affd. 305 N. Y. 648; *Matter of Doca*v. *Federal Stevedoring Co.,*284 App. Div. 46, affd. 308 N. Y. 44; *Meaney*v. *Keating,*200 Misc. 308, affd. 279 App. Div. 1030, affd. 305 N. Y. 660).

I do not consider significant the fact that the medical bills incurred by the plaintiffs were paid by the carrier. A small sum of money which was tendered to the woman plaintiff by way of award was not accepted by her. Nevertheless, the fact that the board did acquire jurisdiction as hereinabove stated bars this action.

Judgment may be entered accordingly in favor of the defendant dismissing the complaint herein.

Execution of judgment for costs is stayed for 10 days after service of notice of entry. Ninety days to make a case.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 00-2479

RANDALL J. COFSKE,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent, Appellee.

ERRATA

The opinion of this court issued May 13, 2002, should be

amended as follows:

On page 17, line 6, replace the phrase "known at defense

counsel" with the phrase "known to defense counsel".
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-40420 Summary Calendar

United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee ,

versus Juan Carlos Arias Lieva, Defendant—Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:19-CR-139-1

Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Juan Carlos Arias Lieva has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Li eva has not filed a response. We

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 17, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40420 Document: 00516207116 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2022No. 21-40420

2 have reviewed counsel’s brief and th e relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appe llate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED , counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED

. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Case: 21-40420 Document: 00516207116 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2022
**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 Quest Group International, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Matthew Evans, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

 (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

|   | /s/ Matthew Evans |
|--------|-------------------|

Matthew Evans

Principal Executive Officer

Principal Financial Officer

December 8, 2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO WAO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO:

WA:20-CV-00456-ADA

ORDER RESETTING MARKMAN MARKMAN HEARING HEARING

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

MARKMAN HEARING by zoomoom on Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 10:00 AM.

reset

IT 22nd day of March, 2021.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00456-ADA Document 58 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 1
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-337-000]

On June 15, 2000, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed in compliance with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of Kern River's filing.

Take notice that the technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Kern River's filing will be held on Thursday, October 12, 2000, at 9:30 am, in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. Parties protesting aspects of Kern River's filing should be prepared to discuss alternatives.

All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-25412 Filed 10-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

The Honorable Karen E. Schreier, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1495

___________

Farrel Eagle Horse, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Dr. D. M. Frost, Medical Director *

and M.D., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: July 3, 2002

 Filed: July 9, 2002

___________

Before LOKEN, BEAM, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Farrel Eagle Horse appeals from the district court’s1

 judgment for defendant

following a jury trial on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 denial-of-medical-care claim. To the

extent that we can consider Eagle Horse’s arguments without a trial transcript, see

Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d 384,

386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988), we find those

arguments unavailing. There is no indication that the jury was selected in a racially
-2-

discriminatory manner, see Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 911 (8th Cir. 1999),

cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1078 (2000); Scott v. James, 902 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.), cert.

denied, 498 U.S. 873 (1990); and there is no constitutional or statutory right to

effective assistance of counsel in a civil case, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536,

541 (8th Cir. 1988).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 32.01**

 

**OFFICERCERTIFICATION**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) on Form 10-Qfor the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersignedofficers of SPS certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to suchofficer’s knowledge:

 

(1)                                  The Form 10-Q fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained inthe Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of SPS as of the dates and for theperiods expressed in the Form 10-Q.

 
| Date: Nov. 2, 2009 |                                        |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                    |                                        |
|                    | /s/ DAVID L. EVES                           |
|                    | David L. Eves                               |
|                    | President and Chief  Executive Officer      |
|                    |                                        |
|                    | /s/ DAVID M. SPARBY                         |
|                    | David M. Sparby                             |
|                    | Vice President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to SPS and will be retained by SPS andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 525 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 525

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2011

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To amend the Public Health Service Act to enhance and increase the 
      number of veterinarians trained in veterinary public health.

    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 ``Veterinary Public Health Amendments 
Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF VETERINARY PUBLIC HEALTH IN CERTAIN PUBLIC HEALTH 
              WORKFORCE PROVISIONS.

    (a) Public Health Workforce Grants.--Subsections (b)(1)(A) and 
(d)(6) of section 765 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295) 
are amended by inserting ``veterinary public health,'' after 
``preventive medicine,'' each place it appears.
    (b) Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program.--
            (1) In general.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
        776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295f-
        1(b)(1)) are amended by striking ``public health or health 
        professions degree or certificate'' each place it appears and 
        inserting ``public health (including veterinary public health) 
        or health professions degree or certificate''.
            (2) Technical correction.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
        776(b)(1) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295f-
        1(b)(1)) is amended by adding ``or'' at the end.
    (c) Definition.--Section 799B of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 295p) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(27) Veterinary public health.--The term `veterinary 
        public health' includes veterinarians engaged in one or more of 
        the following areas to the extent such areas have an impact on 
        human health: biodefense and emergency preparedness, emerging 
        and reemerging infectious diseases, environmental health, 
        ecosystem health, pre- and post-harvest food protection, 
        regulatory medicine, diagnostic laboratory medicine, veterinary 
        pathology, biomedical research, the practice of food animal 
        medicine in rural areas, and government practice.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 8, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### NIX v. NIX.

No. 11905.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. *24,*1948.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 5, 1949.

S. B. Carr, of Floresville, for appellant.

De Witt Murray, of Floresville, for ap-pellee.

*243NORVELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a decree awarding appellee, Opal Johns Nix a divorce from appellant, A. M. Nix. Trial was to the court without a jury.

Appellant’s first four points, in effect, assert that it was not shown by full and satisfactory evidence that appellant had been guilty of cruel treatment toward his wife. Article 4629(1), Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.

We are unable to agree with appellant’s contention. The trial court is the judge of the credibility of witnesses and in this case the appellee was certain and definite in her statements that she had been subjected to physical violence by the appellant upon a number of occasions. No useful purpose would be served by setting forth this testimony. It is sufficient to say that appellee testified that upon the day of the final separation appellant stated that “he wanted me to know that the only reason that he had married me when he did was because nobody else would have me, and that made me mad and I slapped him and we went together and then he threw me across the bed flat on my stomach and he got on top of me, astraddle of me, and beat me over the head with his hands; not one lick but quite a few. And I was in such a dazed condition I didn’t know what happened for a while, and he hit me real hard over the ear and I thought he had damaged my mastoid, but 1 guess he didn’t because I haven’t had any more trouble with it.”

Appellee also testified that after appellant threw her across the bed, "he said he realized he had lost me and he was going to beat hell out of me and he had wanted to do that for a long time and that would be his last chance.”

According to appellee, she was confined to her bed for a period of five days as a result of this beating.

In our opinion, the evidence fully supports the trial court’s conclusion that appellant’s conduct was of such a nature as to render the parties’ living together insupportable.

Appellant’s points Nos. One to Four, inclusive, are overruled. Ballard v. Ballard, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 294, and authorities therein cited; Mortensen v. Mortensen, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 297; Moon v. Moon, Tex.Civ.App., 186 S.W.2d 362; Brown v. Brown, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 730; Finn v. Finn, Tex.Civ.App., 195 S.W.2d 679; Humphreys v. Humphreys, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 453; Tims v. Tims, Tex.Civ.App., 201 S.W.2d 865.

There was no error in the award of attorney’s fees. Boyd v. Guinn, Tex.Civ.App., 44 S.W.2d 1112. We overrule appellant’s fifth point.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Barney A. Richmond, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Assurance Group, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2012, (i) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) that the information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Assurance Group, Inc.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2013 |  | /S/    BARNEY
A.
RICHMOND    
|                   |  | Barney A. Richmond           
|                   |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                   |  | (Principal Executive Officer)

I, Richard C. Turner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my
knowledge, the Annual Report of Assurance Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2012, (i) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) that the information
contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Assurance Group, Inc.



|                   |  |                              
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Date: May 14, 2013 |  | /S/    RICHARD
C.
TURNER     
|                   |  | Richard C. Turner            
|                   |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                   |  | (Principal Financial Officer)