alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 22, 2019 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00697-CV DENNIS HUFFMASTER, Appellant V. AUTOFLEX LEASING, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03426 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, J ustice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns The filing fee and docketing stat ement in this case are past du e. By postcard dated June 14, 2019, we notified appellant the $205 filing fee was due. W e directed appellant to remit the filing fee within ten days and expressly cautioned appellant th at failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal. Also by postcard dated June 14, 2019, we notified appellant the docketing statement had not been filed in this case. We directed appella nt to file the docketing statement within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so might result in dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has not paid the filing fee, filed the docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court regard ing the status of this appeal

.–2– Accordingly, we dism iss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(b)(c).

190697F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
DENNIS HUFFMASTER, Appellant

No. 05-19-00697-CV V. AUTOFLEX LEASING, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-03426. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this app eal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee AUTOFLEX LEASING, I NC. recover its costs of this appeal from appellant DENNIS HUFFMASTER.

Judgment entered August 22, 2019
#### KOONCE v. PERALES et al. KOONCE v. LOPEZ.

Nos. 12688, 12689.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 19, 1954.

Lewright, Dyer,' Sorrell & Redford and James W. Wray, Jr., Corpus Christi, for appellant. ’

R. F. Luna, San Diego, for appellees.

POPE, Justice.

Both of these appeals are from orders overruling pleas of privilege. Ofelia V. Perales, a widow, individually and as next friend for her minor child, in the above cause No. 12688, sued M. B. Koonce for damages alleged to have resulted from an automobile collision between a vehicle driven by Koonce and another vehicle in which Jacinto M. Perales was riding. Jacinto M. Perales was the husband of Ofelia Perales and the father of the minor child, The plaintiffs’ petition asserts that Jacinto M. Perales was killed in the collision.

The other suit, No. 12689, was commenced by Ponciano Lopez, Jr., who asserts that he was also a passenger in the vehicle which collided with the Koonce automobile.

The points in the two cases are similar, and the evidence in these cases is of the same nature as that discussed in Saenz v. Hinojosa, Tex.Civ.App., 268 S.W.2d 476. The matters there discussed are also pertinent to these cases. As in that case, the appellees have failed to file a brief.

Ernesto Molino, a deputy sheriff, was the only person called to testify. He testified with reference to the causes of the accident, though he arrived at the scene of the collision after it occurred. Other witnesses who saw the accident were available. The defendant, Koonce, objected to Molino’s testimony on the grounds that (1) it was hearsay, and (2) that the. witness was not qualified as an expert, as a basis for his opinions and conclusions. He did not testify to the facts in support of his, conclusions. The witness stated that he first thought the Koonce vehicle was proceeding from west to east, but that he changed his mind, after talking witfy other persons. No, effort was made tp.. show that Molino, r either by1 reason of, experience or special training, was better *684able to evaluate the objective evidence than the trier of facts. He did not know the length of the skid marks and did not detail the nature and extent of damage to the vehicles. His testimony was in the nature of conclusions only. Expert opinions and conclusions are permitted when a witness is first shown to “possess special knowledge as to the very matter on which he proposes to give an opinion.” McCormick & Ray, Texas Law of Evidence, § 633. Without the necessary qualifying predicate, an officer, as is the case with any other lay witness, must limit his testimony to facts. Union Bus Lines v. Moulder, Tex.Civ.App., 180 S.W.2d 509.

Appellant’s objections to the evidence should have been sustained. There being no other competent evidence, the judgments of the trial court are both reversed and the causes ordered transferred to Nueces County, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 89, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted Oat. Response

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti Ilh, -

Regional Airline Association Dave Lotterer /0/3/ -

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman

16/3' 'lf1

,

~

AU Craig Fabian /0 3/ d1 ~

L e-L..

09/29/06
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3070 

To amend section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 

to reform access to certain business records for foreign intelligence and 

international terrorism investigations, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2013 

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

Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Select Committee on 

Intelligence (Permanent Select), 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 amend section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to reform access to certain business 

records for foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘NSA Accountability 

5 Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3070 IH

1 SEC. 2. REFORMS TO ACCESS TO CERTAIN BUSINESS 

2 RECORDS FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE AND 

3 INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM INVESTIGA4 TIONS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b)(2)(A) of section 

6 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 

7 (50 U.S.C. 1861) is amended— 

8 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

9 (A) by inserting ‘‘specific and articulable’’ 

10 before ‘‘facts showing’’; 

11 (B) by inserting ‘‘and material’’ after ‘‘are 

12 relevant’’; and 

13 (C) by striking ‘‘clandestine intelligence ac14 tivities’’ and all that follows and inserting 

15 ‘‘clandestine intelligence activities and pertain 

16 only to an individual that is the subject of such 

17 investigation; and’’; and 

18 (2) by striking clauses (i) through (iii). 

19 (b) WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding 

20 any other provision of law, in the case of a violation of 

21 section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

22 of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) in a fiscal year, all unobligated 

23 funds made available for such fiscal year to carry out such 

24 section shall be withheld for the period beginning on the 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3070 IH

1 date of such violation and ending on September 30 of such 

2 fiscal year. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 25791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 2, 1952.

Theo Ash, Abilene, Gene Dulaney, Snyder, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Unlawful possession of whisky for the purpose of sale is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $1,000 and one year in jail.

*393The record affirmatively reflects that this case was tried before a special judge. The transcript does not reflect either the election of such judge or his oath of office.

A special judge has no authority to act — and each act, as such, is a nullity — until he has taken the oath of office. Mims v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 176, 15 S.W.2d 628; Norman v. State, 102 Tex.Cr.R. 5, 277 S.W. 126; Blackburn v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 197, 192 S.W.2d 888.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
### Micronutrients ProcessDiagram

Process is proprietary. Diagram is a bestestimate Aqueous solution of

PMN Substance in shipping container.

Dicopper chloride trihydroxide for use as a micronutrientsin animal feed Base, for example sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, calcium hydroxide of ammonium hydroxide Storage tank A
Order entered April 6, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05-14-00061-CR No. 05-14-00062-CR No. 05-14-00063-CR

TASHIMA NICOLE EVERHART, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F-0825802-S



### ORDER Before Justices Francis, Lang-Miers, and Whitehill

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we GRANT the May 28, 2014 motion of

Matthew J. Kita for leave to withdraw as appointed coun sel on appeal. We DIRECT the Clerk

of the Court to remove Matthew J. Kita as counsel of record for appellant. We DIRECT the

Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order and al l future correspondence to Tashima Nicole

Everhart, TDCJ No. 01925896, William P. Ho bby Unit, 742 FM 712, Marlin, Texas, 76661.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
#### Dr. D. V. SMITH, Appellant, v. Dr. George WELKER, Jr., Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 8, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1954.

*654Harris, Drury & Wathen, Morganfield, L. Allen Rhoads, Henderson, for appellant.

J. D. Ruark, Faust Y. Simpson, Morgan-field, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

The parties to this action are practicing physicians in the town of Morganfield. On January 1, 1949 they executed a partnership agreement by which they agreed to practice ‘as partners under the name of Smith Clinic.

This action was filed by Dr. Welker. He stated in his petition that Dr. Smith had been physically disabled within the meaning of a provision of the partnership agreement, and asked that the partnership be dissolved. Dr. Smith denied the allegations of the petition and by' counter-claim charged that Dr.' Welker’s conduct amounted to withdrawal by him from-. The partnership and sought to invoke, a provision of the partnership agreement which would prevent Dr. Welker from practicing medicine within a radius of 50 miles of Morganfield for a period of five years.

The chancellor v^as of the opinion that neither party had proved the allegations of his petition. He dissolved the partnership, directed that each of the doctors is entitled to one-half of the partnership assets, and adjudged that each party pay one-half of the court cost.

The case presents purely a factual situation. We have examined the evidence carefully and are of the opinion the chancellor reached the only conclusion possible under the circumstances. Although we do not regard it as material, we think that after the chancellor announced his decision he properly refused to permit Dr. Smith to withdraw that part of his answer in which he had charged that Dr. Welker’s conduct amounted to a withdrawal from the partnership.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### GILREATH v. STATE.

No. 25943.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 8, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Charles S.. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., James K. Allen. *541Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for'the State.

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for attempt to commit burglary, the indictment alleging a prior conviction for burglary. The jury having found appellant guilty and to have been so previously convicted, he was sentenced to a term of four years in the penitentiary.

Police officers testified that they discovered appellant and one Donica at the front door óf a Safeway Store in Dallas. Donica at the time was engaged in attempting to -pry open the door while appellant was holding the screen door open and was holding a flashlight for Donica.

Appellant was arrested at the.scene, and a pistol, a screw driver and a pair of gloves were taken from him. Donica also had a pistol, an iron bar and a screwdriver, and also wore gloves according to the officers’ testimony.

According to appellant’s testimony, he took no part in attempting to break open the door and did not know of Donica’s purpose in being there. He testified that he was passing in front of the store at the time he was arrested and that it was purely a coincident that he was near his friend Donica when the officers arrived.

The jury accepted the officers’ version, and appellant having admitted the former conviction alleged in the indictment, returned a verdict finding appellant guilty of the offense charged and finding that he had been so previously convicted as charged. The evidence sustains their verdict.

Error is assigned in the overruling of appellant’s motion for continuance or postponement.

The motion filed January 14, 1952, alleged that appellant’s attorney had been employed on January 12, 1952, and had not been afforded sufficient time to prepare for trial or to acquaint himself with the facts. It was also alleged that the attorney who had represented appellant on a former trial had withdrawn from the case. The state controverted the motion for continuance and alleged that the former counsel had notified appellant on November 26, 1951, that he would no longer represent him, and the case was then set for January 14, 1952. Appellant, who was on bail, received three weeks’ notice of such setting.

It was shown in the state’s controversion that the indictment was returned on March 22,-1951, and the case had been set for trial and passed at the request of appellant some ten times.

Appellant at no time prior to .the date set for trial informed the court that he was unable to obtain counsel. The record reveals that appellant was represented by counsel of his choosing at the trial, the examination of the witnesses disclosing that he was familiar with and had available a transcript of the testimony of witnesses at the former trial.

Under the facts we are unable to agree that the trial court abused his discretion in overruling the motion for continuance.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 23597.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 26, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is robbery. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 10 years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception and the indictment appears in due and legal form. Consequently, there is nothing presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 1455

MARIA LAURA SALINAS DE HERNANDEZ; A.J.S.H.

,

Petitioners

,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted : January 17, 2024 Decided: February 14, 2024

Before GREGORY and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

ON BRIEF: Abdoul A. Konare, KONARE LAW, Frederick, Maryland, for Petitioners.

Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Ferrier,

Assistant Director, Joseph A. O’Connell, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1455 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM:

Maria Laura Salinas De Hernandez and her son, natives and citizens of El Salvador,

petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing their appeal

from the Immigration Judge ’s decision denying Salinas De Hernandez’s applications for

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and the Petitioners’ claims and conclude that the

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings,

see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) , and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief,

see Diaz de Gomez v. Wilkinson , 987 F.3d 359, 362 (4th Cir. 2021)

. Accordingly, we deny

the petition for review. * In re Salinas De Hernandez (B.I.A. Apr. 10, 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.

PETITION DENIED

* The Petitioners’ brief did not raise any issues particular to A.J.S.H. and this opinion

has no bearing on any independent claims for relief advanced by him. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1455 Doc: 27 Filed: 02/14/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2860 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 15, 2014 

Received 

AN ACT 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the 

Inspector General of the Office of Personnel Management 

may use amounts in the revolving fund of the Office 

to fund audits, investigations, and oversight activities, 

and for other purposes. 

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


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2860 RDS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘OPM IG Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. USE OF OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT RE4 VOLVING FUND FOR AUDITS, INVESTIGA5 TIONS, AND OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES. 

6 Subsection (e) of section 1304 of title 5, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1), by adding before the pe9 riod at the end of the first sentence the following: 

10 ‘‘, and for the cost of audits, investigations, and 

11 oversight activities, conducted by the Inspector Gen12 eral of the Office, of the fund and the activities fi13 nanced by the fund’’; and 

14 (2) in paragraph (5)— 

15 (A) by striking ‘‘The Office’’ and inserting 

16 ‘‘(A) The Office’’; and 

17 (B) by adding at the end the following: 

18 ‘‘(B) Such budget shall include an estimate 

19 from the Inspector General of the Office of the 

20 amount required to pay the expenses to audit, inves21 tigate, and provide other oversight activities with re22 spect to the fund and the activities financed by the 

23 fund. 

24 ‘‘(C) The amount requested by the Inspector 

25 General under subparagraph (B) shall not exceed 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2860 RDS 

1 .33 percent of the total budgetary authority re2 quested by the Office under subparagraph (A).’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 14, 

2014. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 11

- 00396

- CV

MELCHOR JESUS B. ACO STA, M.D. APPELLANT

V.

GINA KAY, INDIVIDUAL LY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF TAMSEY LYN ORA MOORE, DECEASED APPELLEES

------------

FROM T HE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered the parties = A Joint Motion To Dismiss, @ requesting

that we render judgment to effectuate their settlement agreement, abate this

case un til the trial court’s proceedings to effectuate the settlement agreement are

complete, and remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

accordance with the parties’ agreement. It is the court = s opinion that the motion

should be granted in part and denied in part. 2 Accordingly, without regard to the

merits, we set aside the trial court = s judgment and remand this case to the trial

court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties = settlement

agreement. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d); Innovative Office Sys.,

Inc. v. Johnson , 911 S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex. 1995).

Appellant’s request that this appeal be joined with appellate cause number

02

- 11

- 00365

- CV, styled TRISUN Healthcare, LLC d/b/a The Plaza At Mansfield

v. Gina Kay, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Tamsey Lynora

Moore, Deceased , is dismissed as moot. All other requested relief is denied.

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d ).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DELIVERED: November 3 , 201 1

2 That is, the parties ask us to render judgment effectuating the parties = agreement and to abate this case until the trial court’s proceedings to effectuate this settlement agreement are complete and to remand this case to the trial court for rendition of judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B), (C). Rule 42.1(a)(2), however, permits us to render judgment effectuating the p arties = agreement or to set aside the trial court = s judgment and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the agreement or to abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement;

we cannot do all three or portions of all three. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B); see also Cunningham v. Cunningham , No. 02

- 08

- 00362

- CV, 2008 WL 5479677, at *1 n.2 (Tex. App.

C Fort Worth Oct. 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

JASON LEE VAN DYKE, § 

PLAINTIFF, § 

§ 

V. § 

§ 

THOMAS CHRISTOPHER RETZLAFF § 

A/KIA DEAN ANDERSON D/B/A § 

BV FILES, VIA VIEW FILES L.L.C., § 

AND VIAVIEW FILES, § 

DEFENDANTS. § 

IJ 1 0 

Fil :r ., MflZ;,ff_- 2020 JUN 21+ AM't G2 

CLE-Rc 

WESTEiTh: 

CAUSE NO. 1 :20-MC-657-LY 

(CASE NO. 4:18-CV-24-ALM, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, SHERMAN DIVISION) 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Emergency Motion to Quash Subpoena filed June 23, 

2010 (Doc. #1) and Plaintifrs Response in Support of Motion to Quash filed June 23, 2020 

(Doc. #2) are REFERRED to United States Magistrate Mark Lane for resolution pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 63 6(b)( 1 )(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the 

Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, as amended.. 

SIGNED this day of June, 2019. 

TED STATES 

Case 1:20-mc-00657-LY Document 6 Filed 06/24/20 Page 1 of 1