alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TATUM et al. v. STATE.

No. 23147.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1945.

Percy Foreman, of Houston, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Harris . County in a bond forfeiture case.

It appears from the record that on the 26th day of March, 1944, Millard Tatum was arrested and charged by complaint and information with a misdemeanor; that on said day and date he, as principal, and Percy Foreman and I. B. Roth, as sureties, made and entered into a bail bond in the sum of Four Hundred Dollars, conditioned as prescribed by law. On the 20th day of April of said year, he failed to appear in said court to answer to the charge pending against him and judgment nisi was entered against him and his sureties. Thereafter, on the 14th day of June, 1944, a scire facias was issued by the clerk of said court citing them and each of them to appear at said court on the 7th day of August and show cause why the forfeiture of said bond should not be made final. Both of the sureties appeared in person' and by answer on file but the principal, Millard Tatum, failed to appear and answer therein. The State, by written motion on file, moved the court to dismiss its case as to the principal on the ground that he was a fugitive from justice and then proceeded with the trial. .Both the State and defendants waived a jury and submitted all issues, both of law and facts, to the court, who, after sustaining the State’s motion to dismiss as to Millard Tatum, the principal, rendered judgment against the sureties in the sum stated in the bond. From this judgment the sureties, Foreman and Roth, appealed to this court.

There are no bills of exception in the record complaining of any procedure in the trial of the case, nor is there a statement of facts.

The State’s Attorney before this court has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal upon the following grounds: (a) Because the procedure governing appeals from judgments in bond forfeiture cases must conform to the rules in civil cases; that in this respect appellants have failed to comply because the transcript was not filed in this court within the sixty-day period as provided by Rule 386 of Vernon’s Texas Rules of Civil Procedure; and (b) because no brief has been filed and no showing made to excuse such failure as provided by Ride 415. See also Orr et al. v. State, 143 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 158 S.W.2d 533; Pettis et al. v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 318, 110 S.W.2d 914, and authorities there cited.

The motion is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.

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.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00297-O 

PLAINTIFF JOHN DOE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

Except for his claim to recover mental anguish as an element of damages under Title IX, 

Plaintiff John Doe opposes Defendant TCU’s motion for summary judgment. 

As set forth more fully in the accompanying Brief in Opposition to Defendant TCU’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment, TCU is not entitled to summary judgment relief. In summary, 

TCU has failed to establish that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided 

at trial and TCU has likewise failed to establish that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In accordance with Local Rule 56.4(b), Doe submits that the matters required under Local 

Rule 56.4(a) are set forth in Mr. Doe’s Brief in Opposition, which is being concurrently filed with 

this Response pursuant to Local Rule 7-1. Mr. Doe incorporates by reference his Brief in 

Opposition, the accompanying Appendix, as well as the pleadings and papers on file in this case.

Accordingly, Plaintiff John Doe requests the Court to deny Defendant TCU’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment except as to Mr. Doe’s claim for mental anguish damages under Title IX. 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 139 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 7414
2

Respectfully submitted,

 

By: /s/ H. Dustin Fillmore III

H. Dustin Fillmore III

Texas Bar No. 06996010

The Fillmore Law Firm, LLP

201 Main Street, Suite 700

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

(817) 332-2351 (phone)

(817) 870-1859 (fax)

dusty@fillmorefirm.com

 By: /s/ Bryan D. Bruner

Bryan D. Bruner

Texas Bar No. 03252475

Lynne B. Frank

Texas Bar No. 24087215

Bruner & Bruner, P.C.

3700 West 7th Street

Fort Worth, Texas 76107

(817) 332-6633 (phone)

(817) 332-6619 (fax)

bbruner@brunerpc.com

lfrank@brunerpc.com

Brian Roark

Texas Bar No. 00794536

Botsford & Roark

1307 West Avenue

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 476-1900 (pone)

(512) 479-8040 (fax)

brian@brianroark.com

Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe 

 

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 139 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 7415
3

Certificate of Service 

The undersigned certifies that on November 21, 2022, a true and correct copy of this 

document was served on counsel for TCU and counsel for Jane Roe via the Court’s electronic 

filing system, CM/ECF.

Lynne B. Frank

Lynne B. Frank

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 139 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 7416
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 248

Providing for the printing of eulogies and encomiums of the late President

of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, as expressed in the House

of Representatives and the Senate.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1994

Mr. MICHEL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on House Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of eulogies and encomiums of

the late President of the United States, Richard M.

Nixon, as expressed in the House of Representatives

and the Senate.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That there be printed with illustrations as a

3 House document the eulogies and encomiums of the late

4 President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, as ex5 pressed in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

6 Such publications to include the text of the funeral serv7 ices held in Yorba Linda, California; and that thirty-two

8 thousand five hundred additional copies shall be printed,
2

HCON 248 IH

1 of which twenty-two thousand one hundred and fifty shall

2 be for the use of the House of Representatives and ten

3 thousand three hundred and fifty shall be for the use of

4 the Senate; or such numbers of copies of the document

5 as does not exceed a total production and printing costs

6 of $500,000.

7 SEC. 2. The copy shall be prepared and bound in such

8 style as the Joint Committee on Printing may direct.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68129-68130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29228]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Pursuant to the provision of the ``Government in the Sunshine Act'' 
(5 U.S.C. Sec. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear 
Facilities Safety Board's (Board) meeting described below.

TIME AND DATE OF MEETING: 6:30 p.m., November 30, 2000.

PLACE: The Conference Center, 215 The Alley, Aiken, South Carolina 
29801.

STATUS: Open. While the Sunshine Act does not require that the 
scheduled discussion be conducted in a meeting, the Board has 
determined that an open meeting in this specific case furthers the 
public interest underlying both the Sunshine Act and the Board's 
enabling legislation.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Board is visiting the Savannah River Site 
(SRS) as part of its oversight of the Department of Energy's (DOE) 
management and operation of defense nuclear facilities. The site visit 
will include discussions of tritium activities at Defense Programs 
facilities as well as nuclear material stabilization activities at 
Environmental Management facilities.
    The Board wishes also to avail itself of the opportunity of this 
visit to meet with members of the public and other interested persons. 
This public meeting is intended to be informal and to provide an 
opportunity for members of the public, DOE employees, and DOE's 
contractor employees to provide comments and information directly to 
the Board regarding any matter affecting health and safety at SRS. 
Specific matters of particular interest to the Board during this visit 
include:
    1. Utilization of F- and H-Canyon Facilities.
    2. Stabilization, Packaging and Storage of Plutonium-bearing 
Materials.
    3. Stabilization of Highly Enriched Uranium Solutions.
    4. High Level Waste Management; Including Selection of an 
Alternative Salt Processing Technology.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Richard A. Azzaro, General 
Counsel, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue, 
NW, Suite 700,

[[Page 68130]]

Washington, DC 20004, (800) 788-4016. This is a toll-free number.

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
John T. Conway,
Chairman.
[FR Doc. 00-29228 Filed 11-9-00; 12:47 pm]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-U
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SkillSoft Public Limited
Company (the "Company") for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Thomas J. McDonald, Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: September 9, 2004

                                            /s/ Thomas J. McDonald
                                            -----------------------
                                            Thomas J. McDonald
                                            Chief Financial Officer
# Appendix A

&F-&A

# Appendix B

&F-&A
{"agency":"Treasury","generated":"2018-10-04 14:10:38","items":[{"id":"1","parent":null,"text":"Reporting Quarter","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-year","label":"Reporting Year","options":[{"label":"2011","value":"2011"},{"label":"2012","value":"2012"},{"label":"2013","value":"2013"},{"label":"2014","value":"2014"},{"label":"2015","value":"2015"},{"label":"2016","value":"2016"},{"label":"2017","value":"2017"},{"label":"2018","value":"2018"}],"value":"2018"},{"type":"select","name":"2-1-quarter","label":"Reporting Quarter","options":[{"label":"Q1","value":"Q1"},{"label":"Q2","value":"Q2"},{"label":"Q3","value":"Q3"},{"label":"Q4","value":"Q4"}],"value":"Q4"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-1","parent":"1","text":"Ten Oldest Requests","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-1-oldest","label":"Ten Oldest","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":"10"}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-3","parent":"1","text":"","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/10\/15","fields":[{"type":"select","name":"2-1-3-closed","label":"Ten Oldest Closed","options":[{"label":"0","value":"0"},{"label":"1","value":"1"},{"label":"2","value":"2"},{"label":"3","value":"3"},{"label":"4","value":"4"},{"label":"5","value":"5"},{"label":"6","value":"6"},{"label":"7","value":"7"},{"label":"8","value":"8"},{"label":"9","value":"9"},{"label":"10","value":"10"}],"value":null}],"multiple":false},{"id":"1-2","parent":"1","text":"FOIA Requests Information","due":null,"due_date":"2012\/08\/21","fields":[{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-component","label":"Component","options":[],"value":["BEP","DO","FinCEN","Fiscal Service","IRS","MINT","OCC","TIGTA","TTB"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-received","label":"Received","options":[],"value":["17","277","125","86","2109","34","449","57","39"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-processed","label":"Processed","options":[],"value":["14","284","124","86","2347","36","404","68","44"]},{"type":"text","name":"2-1-2-backlog","label":"Backlog","options":[],"value":["8","1057","23","27","282"," ","62"," "," "]}],"multiple":true}],"year":"2018","quarter":"Q4"}
_______________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Settlement 

Page | 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Northern District of Texas 

Dallas Division 

Michael Barack and Michelle 

Barack, individually and on behalf 

of a class 

Plaintiffs,

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ CA No: 3:22-cv-890-K 

v. §

§ 

NP Home Buyers, LLC 

Defendant 

§ 

§ 

§ 

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT 

Plaintiffs notify the Court that the parties have entered into a settlement 

agreement by which final payment is to be made on or before November 8, 2022. 

The first payment was made today. When the final payment is made Plaintiffs will 

file a stipulation of dismissal. 

In the event the Court desires to administratively close the case the 

Plaintiffs request that the Court retain jurisdiction to reopen the case if the final 

payment is not made. 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 8 Filed 07/08/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 26
_______________________________________________________________________________ 

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Settlement 

Page | 2 

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Chris R. Miltenberger___ 

 Chris R. Miltenberger 

Texas Bar Number: 14171200 

The Law Office of Chris R. 

Miltenberger, PLLC 

1360 N. White Chapel, Suite 200 

Southlake, Texas 76092-4322 

817-416-5060 (office) 

817-416-5062 (fax) 

chris@crmlawpractice.com

Designated as Lead Attorney 

Attorney for Plaintiff

Certificate of Service 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed 

electronically through the Court’s CM/ECF system in compliance with the 

Local Rules. Defendant has not yet appeared. 

By: /s/ Chris R. Miltenberger 

 Chris R. Miltenberger 

Case 3:22-cv-00890-K Document 8 Filed 07/08/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 27
|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                          
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                            
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                      
|View History:                                                                             
|                                                                                          
|Washington Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                          
|                                                                                          
|Washington Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                          

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 24,600 | 24,600 | 24,600 | 24,600 | 24,600 | 23,400 | 23,400 | 24,800
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 24,000 | 27,000 | 27,500 | 29,000 | 28,200 | 27,900 | NA     | 29,300 | NA     | 29,467
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 29,400 | 29,100 | 29,100 | 28,300 | 33,800 | 33,800 | 33,800 | 33,800 | 33,800 | 33,800
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 33,800 | 33,800 | 35,400 | 36,100 | 36,100 | 36,100 | 36,100 | 36,100 | 37,700 | 39,200
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 42,200 | 42,200 | 42,200 | 42,200 | 42,200 |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, November 8, 2000, 7:30 AM to 
November 10, 2000, 4:00 pm, Georgetown Suites, 1111 30th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC, 20007 which was published in the Federal Register on 
November 2, 2000, 65 FR 65870-65872.
    The starting time of the meeting has been changed to 7:30 pm on 
November 8, 2000. The meeting dates and location remain the same. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: November 6, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29147 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### Hanrog Distributing Corporation, Plaintiff, *v.*Basil Hanioti, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 3, 1945.

*Saul E. Rogers*for plaintiff.

*Andrew J. Dritsas*for defendant.

Bernard L. Shientag, J.

This is a motion for summary judgment. The complaint is predicated on a written agreement of guarantee entered into between the parties. The answer consists of a general denial and four separate defenses alleging, generally, fraud and duress in the execution of the writing upon which the complaint is based. The answering affidavit of the defendant fails, however, to set forth facts within the meaning' of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice sustaining the formal defenses contained in the answer. The papers show without contradiction that the defendant was at all times represented by an attorney not only in connection with the execution of the agreement of guarantee, but in connection with the other *660agreements which were necessary to effectuate the transaction between the parties.

While it is true that the court may not on a motion for summary judgment try an issue of fact and is called upon solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried, it, nevertheless, is not required to shut its eyes to a defense shown by the very affidavit submitted by the defendant to be patently false. A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion. Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice would serve no useful purpose if frivolous and transparently insufficient proofs such as have been brought forward here were held to create a triable issue *(Richard*v. *Credit Suisse,*242 N. Y. 346; *Dwan*v. *Massarene,*199 App. Div. 872; *Strasburger*v. *Rosenheim,*234 App. Div. 544; *Gravenhorst*v. *Zimmerman,*236 N. Y. 22). The situation here is not one of a conflict in affidavits, but, rather, it is one where the writing executed by the parties and the very nature of the averments contained in the defendant’s affidavit show that the issue sought to be created is neither genuine nor substantial.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Execution stayed five days.

Settle order.
Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL S. OWL §

FEATHER-GORBEY, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-566-L-BH

 §

ADMINISTRATOR, F. BOP §

DESIGNATION CENTER, GRAND §

PRAIRIE TEXAS, §

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER

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

(“Report”) (Doc. 7) was entered on March 11, 2022, recommending that the court deny Plaintiff’s 

Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 5); and summarily 

dismiss this action as barred by the “three strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), unless Plaintiff timely 

pays the filing fee before expiration of the deadline for filing objections to the Report or another 

deadline established by the undersigned. No objections to the Report were filed, and no filing fee 

was paid by the deadline for asserting objections.

Having considered the pleadings, file, record in this case, and Report, the court determines 

that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of 

the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court 

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 5); and dismisses with prejudice this action as barred by 

the “three strikes” rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Case 3:22-cv-00566-L-BH Document 8 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 37
Order – Page 2

The court prospectively certifies that any appeal of this action would not be taken in good 

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3). In support of this certification, the 

court accepts and incorporates by reference the Report. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 

and n.21 (5th Cir. 1997). Based on the Report, the court finds that any appeal of this action would 

present no legal point of arguable merit and would, therefore, be frivolous. See Howard v. King, 

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). In the event of an appeal, Plaintiff may challenge this 

certification by filing a separate motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal with the clerk of 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202; Fed. R. App. 

P. 24(a)(5).

It is so ordered this 31st day of March, 2022.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-00566-L-BH Document 8 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 38
#### PAUL REVERE FIRE INS. CO. v. O'CONNER et al.

No. 4081.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 1, 1941.

Roy A. Downey, of Monahans, for appellant.

Henry Russell and James D. Willis, both of Pecos, for appellees.

SUTTON, Justice.

This is an appeal from the County Court of Crane County sustaining a plea of privilege and transferring the cause as to one of the defendants to the County Court at Law of Bexar County.

We find no error and the judgment is affirmed without opinion. McLoughlin v. Schnitzer, Tex.Civ.App., *147*S.W.2d 826.