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

No. 22366.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 20, 1943.

L. D. Johnston, of Waxahachie, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was given a two-year term sentence in the penitentiary upon his plea of guilty before the court without a jury and from it he brings this appeal.

There are no bills of exception in the record. The facts were introduced sufficient to support the conviction and the appeal is predicated solely upon a claim that the accused was induced to plead guilty upon a promise that his sentence would be fixed to run 'concurrently with all other cases pending against him except one and that the total time he would be given in the penitentiary should not exceed four years. The facts concerning this agreement were concluded against appellant’s contention upon his motion for a new trial.

We find that in passing the sentence upon appellant, the court used the following language: “This sentence is to be cumulative of and in addition to all other sentences heretofore or hereafter imposed against said defendant (there being many cases pending against him) and particularly in addition to and cumulative of the conviction for a similar offense in the District Court of Kaufman Co., Texas, and cause Nos. 9054 and 9066 in this county; it being the intention of the court that none of the convictions run concurrent, but that they all be and run cumulative in due order.”

It will be observed that neither the date of the Kaufman County conviction nor the term assessed against him there are given. There is no description by which that judgment may be identified. This we consider *762an essential ingredient of the court’s order making one sentence accumulative of another. Without holding that the form must be literally followed, we nevertheless commend Wilson’s form #986 as being sufficiently specific to identify the previous judgment of conviction and to fix the time at which the present sentence should begin to run.

Reference to another conviction or convictions as “all other sentences heretofore or hereafter imposed” must be considered too indefinite. We think, too, that the court has jurisdiction only to fix the time when the sentence in this particular case should begin to run with reference to existing sentences previously imposed against him and not to future cases. It follows that that portion of the sentence in the instant case, which attempts to make a two-year sentence imposed cumulative of any other sentence, is ineffective. The sentence will accordingly be so reformed that the time for which appellant serves in the present case will begin to run as provided by law, independent of any other conviction.

As so reformed, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
ORDER Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT HOPKINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-00706-E

ORDER

Before the Court are two motions filed by Plaintiff Robert Hopkins, III: (1) Plaintiff’s 

Unopposed Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 49); and (2) Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for 

Enlargement of Time within which to File Notice of Appeal, (ECF No. 50). On March 25, 2024, 

the Court issued a memorandum opinion and order in which it dismissed all of Plaintiff Hopkins’ 

claims with prejudice after concluding the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate 

his claims. (See ECF No. 47). 

In his motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff Hopkins asserted that he demonstrated 

excusable neglect—the standard by which Fed. R. App. P. 60(b)(1) motions are measured—when 

he incorrectly assumed that his motion to stay would be granted, thus resulting in his failure to 

timely respond to Defendant Department of Defense’s dispositive motion. (See ECF No. 49 at 1-

2). However, Plaintiff Hopkins’ incorrect assumption does not constitute excusable neglect, and 

thus, he has not shown himself entitled to reconsideration. The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff 

Hopkins’ motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 49).

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 51 Filed 05/20/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1029
ORDER Page 2 of 2

Further, because Plaintiff Hopkins failed to demonstrate excusable neglect, he cannot 

satisfy Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), which permits a district court to extend the time to file a notice of 

appeal if “that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). Thus, 

Plaintiff Hopkins’ motion for enlargement of time within which to file notice of appeal is also 

DENIED. (ECF No. 50). 

SO ORDERED: May 20, 2024.

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 51 Filed 05/20/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1030
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>   5


<S>                                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                      OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                           JAN-31-2000
<CASH>                                                      81,921
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               53,458
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                 18,162
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           296,660
<PP&E>                                                     360,021
<DEPRECIATION>                                             108,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             669,793
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       99,825
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                    11,539
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                                 558,429
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               669,793
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 0
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                    0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           212,600
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           5,027
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           (215,320)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       (215,320)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                              (215,320)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                 (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 (.02)




</TABLE>
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 222

Authorizing the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg

in the Capitol.
103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 222

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Joint Committee on the Library is

3 authorized to accept a bust of Raoul Wallenberg and to

4 place the bust in an appropriate location in the Capitol,

5 as determined by the Joint Committee on the Library.

Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 1994.

Attest:

Clerk.
[Cite as Hogya v. Hogya, 2022-Ohio-2465.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

LAKE COUNTY

PAIGE HOGYA,

Petitioner-Appellee,

- vs -

HOPE C. HOGYA,

Respondent-Appellant.

CASE NO. 2022-L-051

Civil Appeal from the

Court of Common Pleas, 

Domestic Relations Division

Trial Court No. 2021 DV 000121

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

Decided: July 18, 2022

Judgment: Appeal dismissed

Paige Hogya, pro se, 7673 Holly Drive, Mentor on the Lake, OH 44060 (PetitionerAppellee).

Hope C. Hogya, pro se, PID# 517804, Lake County Adult Detention Facility, 104 East 

Erie Street, Painesville, OH 44077 (Respondent-Appellant).

CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.

{¶1} Appellant, Hope C. Hogya, filed a pro se appeal, but no entry was attached. 

{¶2} The trial court docket reveals that on June 28, 2021, appellee, Paige Hogya, 

petitioned the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, for a 

domestic violence civil protection order against her sister, appellant. The trial court issued 

an order of protection on July 8, 2021, effective for one year for appellee and her 

daughter. On July 13, 2021 and July 20, 2021, two motions to modify or terminate the 

protection order were filed. On October 13, 2021, the trial court denied the motions. 
2

Case No. 2022-L-051

Appellant filed a motion for contempt of a domestic violence civil protection order. In an 

entry dated October 22, 2021, the trial court dismissed the motion for contempt.

{¶3} The docket confirms that since October 22, 2021, the trial court has issued 

no other entry. This appeal was filed on June 13, 2022. Pursuant to App.R. 3(D) and 

Loc.R. 3(C)(2), appellant is required to attach to the notice of appeal a copy of the entry 

being appealed, or the appeal may be dismissed. Specialized Loan Servicing, L.L.C. v. 

Kovach, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2022-G-0002, 2022-Ohio-1014, ¶ 3. Here, appellant did 

not attach the entry being appealed to her notice of appeal, and the last entry issued by 

the trial court was on October 22, 2021. An appeal from that entry or any other former 

entry would be untimely pursuant to App.R. 4(A).

{¶4} Based on the foregoing, appellant’s appeal is dismissed, sua sponte. 

{¶5} Appeal dismissed.

MATT LYNCH, J.,

JOHN J. EKLUND, J.,

concur.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28488]



[[Page 66806]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of the Public Debt


Proposed Collection: Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general 
public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment 
on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by 
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the 
Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the 
Subscription For Purchase and Issue of U.S. Treasury Securities, State 
and Local Government Series.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before January 11, 
2001, to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. 
Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 
26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Subscription For Purchase And Issue 
Of U.S. Treasury Securities--State And Local Government Series.
    OMB Number: 1535-0092.
    Form Number: PD F 4144
    Abstract: The information is requested to establish accounts for 
the owners of securities of State and Local Government Series.
    Current Actions: None.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Affected Public: State or Local Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5,000.
    Estimated Time Per Respondent: 30 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 2500.

Request for Comments

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized 
and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will 
become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether 
the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance 
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the 
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) 
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates 
of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and 
purchase of services to provide information.

    Dated: November 1, 2000.
Vicki S. Thorpe,
Manager, Graphics, Printing and Records Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-28488 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-39-P
Case 3:22-cr-00132-M Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1
Case 3:22-cr-00132-M Document 1 Filed 03/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2
U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O RT H E T H IR D C IR C U IT M ar ch 23, 2010 N o. 09- 1471 PA TR I CI A W I LLI A M S,

A ppel l ant v. CO M M I SS I ON ER O F S OC I AL SECU RI TY ( E . D . Pa. N o. 2- 07- cv- 01832) Pr es ent : SC I R I C A , C hi ef Judge, J O R D A N and C O W E N C i r cui tJudges

1. M ot i on fi l ed byA ppel l ee Com m i s s i onerof Soci alSecuri tyt o Publ i s h O pi ni on. 2. R es pons e byA ppel l antt o M ot i on t o Publ i s h O pi ni on. / s/D esi ree W hit e-B ank s C as e M anage r( 267) 299- 4252 O R D E R The f or e go i ng m ot i on t o publ i s h i s gr ant ed. T he Pr ece denti alO pi ni on i s bei ng s i m ul t aneous l yfi l ed w iththis ord er. B y th e C o u rt, / s /R obertE . C ow en C i rcui tJudge D at e d: A pr i l1, 2010 D W B / cc: R obertSavoy , E s q. A l l y s on J ozw i k, E s q.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

MAI T. NGUYEN and SUMNER G. KAYE
, Appellant s ,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 192

[ February 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Jaimie R. Goodman , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2015

- CA

008448

- XXXX

- MB

.

Jonathan J. Levy and Kendrick Almaguer of The Ticktin Law Group, Deerfield Beach, for appellants.

Kimb erly S. Mello of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Orlando, Michele L. Stocker of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, and Joseph H. Picone of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

W ARNER
, D AMOORGIAN and F ORST
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
H. Con. Res. 82 Agreed to May 7, 1993

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

Concurrent Resolution

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SOAP BOX DERBY RACES ON CAPITOL GROUNDS.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association (hereinafter in this resolution referred to as the ‘‘Association’’) shall be

permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on

the Capitol grounds on July 17, 1993, or on such other date as

the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President

pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate.

SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

The event to be carried out under this resolution shall be

free of admission charge to the public and arranged not to interfere

with the needs of Congress, under conditions to be prescribed by

the Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board; except

that the Association shall assume full responsibility for all expenses

and liabilities incident to all activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

For the purposes of this resolution, the Association is authorized

to erect upon the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the

Architect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification devices,

and other related structures and equipment as may be required

for the event to be carried out under this resolution.
H. Con. Res. 82—2

SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board

are authorized to make any such additional arrangements that

may be required to carry out the event under this resolution.

Attest:

Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

Secretary of the Senate.
#### John L. THORNTON et al. v. STATE.

No. 23151.

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.

The record in this case is in the same condition as the one in Cause No. 23147, Millard Tatum et al. v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 187 S.W.2d 989, this day decided. The State’s Attorney has filed a like motion in this case as in Cause No. 23,147, and for the reasons therein stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal 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.
#### MAYNARD v. STATE.

No. 25750.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 12, 1952.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully selling whisky in a dry area. The penalty assessed is a fine of $200.

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged and waived a jury upon the trial.

The record is before us without a statement of facts and bills of exception, in the absence of which no question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN HAMMLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID BAUGHAM; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-16089 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00245-TLN-CKD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2021**

Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges. 

California state prisoner Allen Hammler appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First 

Amendment retaliation claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 19 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 2 20-16089

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Hammler’s action because Hammler

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants took an adverse action 

against him because of his protected conduct. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 

1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim in the 

prison context). 

To the extent that Hammler alleged deficiencies in the grievance process, the 

district court properly dismissed these claims because “inmates lack a separate 

constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance procedure.” Ramirez v. 

Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003). 

AFFIRMED.
# Appendix A

# Appendix B
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

 

2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of March1, 2015 by and among Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, RialtoCapital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer, TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.as Trust Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian, Wilmington Trust,National Association as Trustee relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial MortgageTrust 2016-C27, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C27(WFCM 2015-C27)

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activities andperformance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordancewith the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under mysupervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date: March 1, 2017
#### MONTOYA v. STATE.

No. 26306.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

*875MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $50.

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

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