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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER STRIKING AND UNFILING DOCUMENT(S)

The Court has independently determined that the document(s) below should be stricken and unfiled. Accordingly, it is ordered 

that the document(s) is/are stricken from the record of this case, and the Clerk is directed to note on the docket that the 

document(s) has/have been unfiled.

DATE U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

Judge:

Case Number: Style:

Date:

*******************

1. A civil cover sheet must be filed with the complaint. See LR 3.1(a) or LR 3.2(c).

2. The document(s) must be in proper form. See LR 10.1 or LCrR 49.3.

3. The signature of the attorney of record, which includes a party proceeding pro se, is required on each

A(n) has been filed by

 and is considered deficient in the area(s) noted below:

document filed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(a), FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d), LR 11.1(b), or LCrR 49.5(b).

5. Each separate document contained therein must be identified. See LR 5.1(c) or LCrR 49.2(c).

4. A completed certificate of service is required. See FED. R. Civ. P. 5(d) or FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d).

6. The motion RUUHVSRQVHmust include:

brief in support of motion. See LR 7.1(d), LR 56.5(a), or LCrR 47.1(d).

certificate of conference or inability to confer. See LR 7.1(b) or LCrR 47.1(b).

proposed order. See LR 7.1(c) or LCrR 47.1(c).

documentary or non-documentary evidence in a separate appendix. See LR 7.1(i) or LR 56.6.

a.

b.

c.

d.

See LR 15.1(a) and (b). If the motion for leave to amend is filed on paper, the motion must be

accompanied by an original and second copy of the proposed amended pleading that is neither attached to the

motion nor made an exhibit to the motion. See LR 15.1(a).

7. A motion for leave to amend must have a copy of the proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit.

8. A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the party as well as by the attorney of record.

See LR 40.1.

10. Additional copies are required. See LR 5.1(b) or LCrR 49.2(b).

9. An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must apply for admission on an approved form and pay the

11. The attorney filing the pleading is not admitted to practice in this district. See LR 83.7 or LCrR 57.7.

applicable fee. See LR 83.9(b) or LCrR 57.9(b).

12. The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. See LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e),

13. Other:

LR 7.4, LR 81.1 (a)(3)(D), or LR 81.2.

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW-XGJH

a separate 

U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTR

August 19, 2022 

Means 8/11/2022

4:22-CV-343-Y Ross v. Assoc. of Prof. Flight Attendants, et al.

Response to Defs.' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 33)

Plaintiff

✔

✔

✔

See also LR 7.1(i)(4) (regarding pagination of appendix); 7.2(e) (regarding citations in brief to particular pages 

of appendix); and Judge Means's specific requirements II(E) (regarding inclusion of a paper copy of the notice 

of electronic filing with the Judge's paper copy), available at 

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judge/senior-district-judge-terry-means

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 35 Filed 08/19/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 514
#### ROYALL v. STATE.

No. 24453.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 2, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Crim. Dist. Atty., of Houston, E. T. Branch, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., of Houston, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

*928• DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault upon a female child; the punishment, a fine of $1,000 and two years in the county jail.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing ' is presented for the consideration of this court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 237

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol grounds for the

Service.13th annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial
★

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 237

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL

4 PEACE OFFICERS’ MEMORIAL SERVICE.

5 The National Fraternal Order of Police and its auxil6 iary shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 13th

7 annual National Peace Officers’ Memorial Service, on the

8 Capitol grounds on May 15, 1994, or on such other date

9 as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the

10 President pro tempore of the Senate may jointly des11 ignate, in order to honor the 151 law enforcement officers

12 who died in the line of duty during 1993.
2

•HCON 237 EH1S

1 SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—The event authorized to be con3 ducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1 shall be

4 free of admission charge to the public and arranged not

5 to interfere with the needs of Congress, under conditions

6 to be prescribed by the Architect of the Capitol and the

7 Capitol Police Board.

8 (b) EXPENSES AND LIABILITIES.—The National

9 Fraternal Order of Police and its auxiliary shall assume

10 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

11 to all activities associated with the event.

12 SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

13 (a) STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.—Subject to the

14 approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the National Fra15 ternal Order of Police and its auxiliary are authorized to

16 erect upon the Capitol grounds such stage, sound amplifi17 cation devices, and other related structures and equip18 ment, as may be required for the event authorized to be

19 conducted on the Capitol grounds under section 1.

20 (b) ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.—The Architect of

21 the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board are authorized
3

•HCON 237 EH1S

1 to make any such additional arrangements as may be re2 quired to carry out the event.

Passed the House of Representatives April 26, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA § 

 § 

VS. § CRIMINAL NO. 4:22-CR-114-Y 

 § 

TERRY DALE WEBB (1) § 

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND ADJUDGING DEFENDANT GUILTY 

The Court has reviewed all relevant matters of record in this case, 

including especially (1) the Consent to Administration of Guilty Plea 

and Allocution by United States Magistrate Judge and (2) the Report of 

Action and Recommendation on Plea Before the United States Magistrate 

Judge. No objections to either have been filed within fourteen (14) 

days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, 

the Court concludes that the report and recommendation of the magistrate 

judge on the plea of guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the 

Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and defendant 

is hereby adjudged guilty. The defendant’s sentence will be imposed in 

accordance with the Court’s sentencing scheduling order. 

SIGNED June 9, 2022. 

 

 _________________________________ 

 TERRY R. MEANS 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cr-00114-Y Document 25 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 58
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-77,016

EX PARTE MICHAEL BRUCE LAPE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 12-05-05234-CR IN THE 221 DISTRICT COURT ST

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a

controlled substance and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that he is actually innocent based on laboratory testing that revealed the

substance he possessed was not a controlled substance. The trial court found that the substance

Applicant possessed was not a controlled substance and concluded that Applicant is actually

innocent of the offense. The trial court recommended that relief be granted. After a remand to the
2

trial court, the habeas record now contains the report of the laboratory testing from the Texas

Department of Public Safety, which reflects that no controlled substance was detected. Applicant

is entitled to relief. Ex parte Elizondo, 947 S.W.2d 202, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

Relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 12-05-05234-CR in the 221 Judicial District st

Court of Montgomery County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the custody of the Sheriff

of Montgomery County to answer the charges as set out in the indictment. The trial court shall issue

any necessary bench warrant within 10 days after the mandate of this Court issues. 

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Parole Division.

Delivered: April 24, 2013

Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29081]



[[Page 68126]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[C-508-605]


Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Review of Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (the Department) is extending the 
time limit for the final results of the administrative review of the 
countervailing duty order on industrial phosphoric acid from Israel, 
covering the period January 1, 1998 through December 31, 1998.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 14, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Carey, AD/CVD Enforcement Office 
7, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3964.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 
of 1930, as amended (the ``Act''), the Department may extend the 
deadline for completion of an administrative review if it determines 
that it is not practicable to complete the review within the statutory 
time limit of 120 days after the date on which the notice of 
preliminary results was published in the Federal Register. In the 
instant case, the Department has determined that it is not practicable 
to complete the review within the statutory time limit. See Memorandum 
from Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini (November 1, 2000). 
Therefore, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 
is extending the time limit for the final results to no later than 
March 5, 2001, which is 180 days after the publication date in the 
Federal Register of the notice of preliminary results for this review. 
The preliminary results were published in the Federal Register on 
September 6, 2000 (65 FR 53984).

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group III.
[FR Doc. 00-29081 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9


                       RESTATED INTERCOMPANY NOTE: HUNTLEY

$88,300,000                                                    February 22, 2000


                  FOR VALUE RECEIVED, HUNTLEY POWER LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order of NRG
NORTHEAST GENERATING LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its successors
and assigns (the "Lender"), on demand in lawful money of the United States in
immediately available funds, at the office of the Lender located at 1221
Nicollet Mall, Suite 700, Minneapolis, MN 55403, the principal sum of
EIGHTY-EIGHT MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($88,300,000) or, if less,
the aggregate unpaid principal amount of the loan remaining outstanding
hereunder.

                  The Borrower also promises to pay as interest on the unpaid
principal amount hereof semi-annually on June 15 and December 15 of each year,
beginning on June 15, 2000 in like money at said office from the date hereof
until paid, an amount equal to eleven and eight tenths percent (11.8%) (its
"Proportionate Share") of the interest due in respect of certain bonds issued by
the Issuer pursuant to an indenture entered into by the Issuer, certain
guarantors thereto and the Chase Manhattan Bank, as trustee, of even date
herewith.

                  The Borrower may voluntarily prepay this Note, in whole or in
part provided, however, the Borrower may not prepay more than its Proportionate
Share of the principal amounts set forth in Schedule A hereto before the date
specified on such schedule without the prior written consent of the Lender. The
Lender shall record all such prepayments of principal, and the principal sum due
under this Note shall be reduced accordingly.

                  The Borrower hereby waives presentment, demand, protest or
notice of any kind in connection with this Note. All amounts payable under this
Note are payable without relief from valuation and appraisement laws.


<PAGE>   2


                  This Restated Intercompany Note shall be construed in
accordance with and be governed by the law of the State of New York.

                                            HUNTLEY POWER LLC

                                            By:   /s/ Brian B. Bird
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Name:  Brian B. Bird
                                                  Title: Treasurer


                                        2
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ELVIS WAYNE JONES, §

#00536937 §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-CV-00724-E (BH)

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

§

Respondent. § Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in 

this case. (Doc. 26). No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed findings, 

conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the 

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED: April 18, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-00724-E-BH Document 27 Filed 04/18/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 135
VĂN PHÒNG VỀ QUYỀN DÂN SỰ VÀ CƠ HỘI VIỆC LÀM BÌNH ĐẲNG 

• Để nộp đơn khiếu nại về phân biệt đối xử trong chương trình, hãy gửi tới: 

Director, Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity, 1500 

Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20220.

• Các yêu cầu về thích nghi hợp lý theo Mục 504 của Đạo luật Phục hồi phải được 

gửi qua biểu mẫu phản hồi trực tuyến của chúng tôi.

• Thông tin bổ sung về Quyền Dân sự và Cơ hội Việc làm Bình đẳng Đa dạng

THÔNG TIN LIÊN HỆ 

Để liên lạc với Cơ quan Tịch thu Tài sản của Bộ Tài chính (TEOAF) ở Washington, DC 

hoặc nếu có thắc mắc chung về TEOAF, hãy sử dụng Biểu mẫu Phản hồi Chung Trực 

tuyến của chúng tôi hoặc gọi tới số 202-622-9600.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67730]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-059]


Reliant Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 1, 2000, Reliant Energy Gas 
Transmission Company (REGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be 
effective November 1, 2000:

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 8I
Second Revised Sheet No. 8J

    REGT states that the purpose of this filing is to reflect the 
addition of two new negotiated rate contracts.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sec. 385.214 or Sec. 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28924 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS. AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                              93
<SECURITIES>                                       502
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,883<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,017
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,840
<PP&E>                                             319<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,898
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,365
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              198
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,016
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,898
<SALES>                                         27,421
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                27,421
<CGS>                                           24,146
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   24,146
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,046
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  79
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (711)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (711)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS REPORTED FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PROPERTY PLANT & EQUIPMENT ARE NET
AMOUNTS.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### LLOYD et al. v. BONDS.

No. A-2081.

Supreme Court of Texas.

March 2, 1949.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1949.

*1001J. W. Madden, Jr. and Paul T. McMahon, both of Dallas, for petitioners.

Marvin B. Simpson and Sam Billingsley, both of Ft. Worth, for respondent

PER CURIAM.

By this action petitioners seek to set aside a portion of a decree theretofore rendered in a divorce suit between Mrs. Lloyd and her former husband, P. R. Bonds. The prayer of the petition was that that portion of the judgment in the flivorce case wherein certain shares of the capital stock of Bonds and Dillard Drilling Corporation were awarded to Mrs. Lloyd be set aside, and that she be given judgment for additional shares of stock or the value thereof.

It has been definitely settled by the decisions of this court that, although an action to set aside a portion of a divorce decree is brought as an independent suit after the divorce decree becomes final, and although it seeks to set aside or disturb only that portion of the judgment dealing with property rights, the action is nevertheless a case of divorce, in which case the judgment of the court of civil appeals is final under Article 1821, R.C.S., Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 1821, and this court is without jurisdiction to grant a writ of error therein. Burguieres v. Farrell, 126 Tex. 209, 87 S.W.2d 463.

Because this question has recurred several times recently in cases in which the case just above cited seems to have been overlooked, this memorandum opinion is written in order that the attention of the 'bar may be called to the holding in that case.

The application for writ of error will dismisse¿ for want of jurisdiction.