alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-10065 USDC No. 3:94-CV-2153-R

__________________ BILLY WAYNE HORTON, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,
Respondent-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

____________________ (June 6, 1995) Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: Billy Wayne Horton's notice of appeal has been treated as a request for a certificate of probable cause (CPC) pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Horton exhausted his state habeas corpus remedies with respect to the claims raised in the instant petition subsequent to the district court's entry of judgment dismissing his petition for failure to exhaust. See Picard v. Conner , 404 U.S. 270, 275-78 (1971). Therefore, Horton's motion for CPC is GRANTED, the judgment of the district court is VACATED, and the petition is REMANDED for consideration of the merits. See Clark v. Williams , 693 F.2d 381, 382 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court is also directed toO R D E R No. 95-10065 -2- determine whether Horton was "in custody" for the instant burglary conviction at the time that he filed his federal petition. See Thompson v. Collins , 981 F.2d 259, 261 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Garlotte v. Fordice , 29 F.3d 216, 217 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. granted , 115 S. Ct. 929 (1995), rev'd. 1995 WL 318633 (U.S. May 30, 1995).
Exhibit 10.9


 





P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.


 


CAPITAL NOTE





	 	 	Date of Issuance
	USD 100,000	 	November 26, 2014
	 	 	 


P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.,
an Israeli company (the “Company”), hereby promises to pay to the order of IP Bank International (Suzhou)
Co., Ltd. (“IPB”), the sum of one hundred thousand US dollars ($100,000) (the “Note Amount”),
in connection with the Side Agreement by and between the Company and IPB, dated as of July 20, 2014 (the “Side Agreement”),
all pursuant to the terms and conditions of this general unsecured capital note (this “Note”).


 


Capitalized terms used but
not otherwise defined in this Note, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Side Agreement.


 


1.           Payment. The Note Amount shall be paid by the Company to IPB, within 14 days
following the consummation of the closing of a Trigger Event (as such term is defined in Section 3 to the Side Agreement), upon
surrender of this Note to the Company. Payment of the Note Amount shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America,
at the principal office of the Company or at such place as may be designated in writing by IPB. The Note Amount shall not bear
interest. 


 


2.           Miscellaneous. This Note, and the obligations and rights of the Company hereunder,
shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Company, IPB, and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. This Note
shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Israel, without regard to its conflict of law rules.
Any dispute arising under or in relation to this Note shall be resolved in the competent court in Tel-Aviv, and each of the parties
hereby submits irrevocably to the jurisdiction of such court. This Note embodies the entire agreement and understanding of the
parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and it supersedes all prior agreements, arrangements, understandings
and undertakings, written or oral, relating to the subject matter hereof, if any. This Note may not be modified or amended except
with the written consent of the Company and IPB. This Note may be executed in two counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.


 





	 	 	/S/
    Dr. Fernando de la Vega
	Agreed and Accepted: 	 	P.V. Nano Cell Ltd.
	 	 	 
	/S/
    Amit Gal-Or	 	 
	IP Bank International (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (“IPB”)	 	By: Dr.
    Fernando de la Vega
	 	 	 
	By: Amit
    Gal-Or	 	Title:
    CEO
	 	 	 
	Title:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6647 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JENNIFER A. ROUSE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (CR-92-88)

Submitted: June 23, 2005 Decided: July 1, 2005

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer A. Rouse, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jennifer A. Rouse, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal

the district court’s order construing her motion to correct an

illegal sentence as a successive motion filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000), and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A

certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district

court’s assessment of her constitutional claims is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district

court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rouse has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRUNO MANUEL GONZALEZGARCIA,§

§

 Movant, §

§ No. 3:22-cv-01383-M (BT) 

v. § No. 3:20-cr-455-M-1

§

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated July 11, 2022. The Court has made 

a de novo review of those portions of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which 

objections were made. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted, and the objections are 

overruled. 

SO ORDERED this 2nd day of August, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-01383-M-BT Document 6 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 2

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget

for the United States Government.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. MICHEL (for himself, Mr. CAMP, and Mr. MCHUGH) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for

a balanced budget for the United States Government.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the follow4 ing article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitu5 tion of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents

6 and purposes as part of the Constitution if ratified by the

7 legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
2

•HJ 2 IH

1 seven years after the date of its submission to the States

2 for ratification:

3 ‘‘ARTICLE —

4 ‘‘SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall

5 not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three6 fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall

7 provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts

8 by a rollcall vote.

9 ‘‘SECTION 2. The limit on the debt of the United

10 States held by the public shall not be increased, unless

11 three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall pro12 vide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. Prior to each fiscal year, the President

14 shall transmit to the Congress a proposal budget for the

15 United States Government for that fiscal year, in which

16 total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

17 ‘‘SECTION 4. No bill to increase revenue shall become

18 law unless approved by a majority of the whole number

19 of each House by a rollcall vote.

20 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress may waive the provisions

21 of this article for any fiscal year in which a declaration

22 of war is in effect. The provisions of this article may be

23 waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is

24 engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and

25 serious military threat to national security and is so de-
3

•HJ 2 IH

1 clared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the

2 whole number of each House, which becomes law.

3 ‘‘SECTION 6. The Congress shall enforce and imple4 ment this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely

5 on estimates of outlays and receipts.

6 ‘‘SECTION 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts

7 of the United States Government except those derived

8 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of

9 the United States Government except for those for repay10 ment of debt principal.

11 ‘‘SECTION 8. This article shall take effect beginning

12 with fiscal year 1998 or with the second fiscal year begin13 ning after its ratification, whichever is later.’’.

Æ
# Official Journal C 104I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 104I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 654 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 104I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 654 March 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 104 I/01 | Commission Communication – Providing operational guidelines for external border management to facilitate border crossings at the EU-Ukraine borders | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 104 I/01

Commission Communication – Providing operational guidelines for external border management to facilitate border crossings at the EU-Ukraine borders

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3456 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3456

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 12, 2013

  Ms. Schwartz (for herself and Mr. Roe of Tennessee) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' 
  Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, 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 title 38, United States Code, to improve the enrollment of 
   veterans in certain courses of education, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. PRIORITY ENROLLMENT FOR VETERANS IN CERTAIN COURSES OF 
              EDUCATION.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, is 
amended by inserting after section 3680A the following new section:
``Sec. 3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses
    ``(a) In General.--With respect to an educational assistance 
program provided for in chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or 
chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, if an educational institution 
administers a priority enrollment system that allows certain students 
to enroll in courses earlier than other students, the Secretary or a 
State approving agency may not approve a program of education offered 
by such institution unless such institution allows a covered individual 
to enroll in courses at the earliest possible time pursuant to such 
priority enrollment system.
    ``(b) Covered Individual Defined.--In this section, the term 
`covered individual' means an individual using educational assistance 
under chapter 30, 31, 32, 33, or 35 of this title or chapter 1606 or 
1607 of title 10, including--
            ``(1) a veteran;
            ``(2) a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty 
        or a member of a reserve component (including the National 
        Guard);
            ``(3) a dependent to whom such assistance has been 
        transferred pursuant to section 3319 of this title; and
            ``(4) any other individual using such assistance.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
3680A the following new item:

``3680B. Priority enrollment in certain courses.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JENNIFER VANDERSTOK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BLACKHAWK MANUFACTURING 

GROUP INC., et al., 

Intervenor Plaintiffs, 

v. 

MERRICK GARLAND, in his Official 

capacity as Attorney General of the 

United States, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00691-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Exceed Page Limits (ECF No. 198), filed April 

6, 2023, wherein they seek to file a reply brief on summary judgment not to exceed 55 pages. 

Original Plaintiffs Vanderstok and Andren, Tactical Machining, LLC, and Firearms Policy 

Coalition, Inc. do not oppose Defendants’ filing of a 50-page reply brief but do oppose Defendants’ 

filing of a 55-page reply brief. To expedite resolution of the issue, the Court ORDERS Original 

Plaintiffs to respond to the motion no later than April 10, 2023. Defendants may reply no later 

than April 14, 2023. 

SO ORDERED this 7th day of April, 2023. 

Case 4:22-cv-00691-O Document 200 Filed 04/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4337
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from May 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 

 
| Dated March 21, 2016 |                                  |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |                                  |
|                      |                                  |
|                      | /s/  Erin M. Rohde               |
|                      | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner |
|                      | Trust 2015-B                          |

 

----
Case 4:22-cv-00691-O   Document 275-1   Filed 12/28/23    Page 1 of 1   PageID 5365
Case 5:22-cr-00074-H-BQ Document 186 Filed 12/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 361
Opinion issued June 10, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00403-CV

———————————

FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Appellant

V.

LOUIS VUITTON HOUSTON GALLERIA, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 75486-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellee, Mercedes Benz of Houston Greenway, filed a motion seeking the 

dismissal of Appellant Felicia Jones’ appeal for want of jurisdiction.

On March 6, 2014, Mercedes Benz filed a Motion to Dismiss in trial court 

pursuant to Rule 91(a). See TEX. R. CIV. P. 91(a). The Brazoria County Court held 
2

a hearing on the motion and granted an interlocutory judgment dismissing 

appellant’s claims against Mercedes Benz. Appellant brings this appeal from the 

interlocutory judgment dismissing claims against Mercedes Benz. The original 

trial court suit is still pending against other named parties.

Texas appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments, and 

interlocutory orders are only appealable if specified by statute. See Bison Bldg. 

Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582, 585 (Tex. 2012); Stary v. DeBord, 

967 S.W.2d 352, 352-353 (Tex. 1998). An order that disposes of claims against 

one or some of the defendants in a suit does not render a judgment final. See 

Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W. 3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001). 

The order appealed from here is not a final judgment because the suit is still 

pending in Brazoria County and only Mercedes Benz has been dismissed as 

defendant. The appellant has failed to point to any statutory authority that would 

allow for an interlocutory appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Brown.
-78 -77 -76 -75 -74 -73

38 39 40 

### ★
▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 09/05 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 05 Sep 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOSEPH KELLY DINGLER, #00149118,

Plaintiff,

VS.

ROCKWALL CO, TX JUDGE

WOODWARD,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:22-CV-1239-G-BK

)

)

)

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. Objections were filed. The district court reviewed de

novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to

which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings,

conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. The court ACCEPTS the Findings,

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, except for

the following: on page one, line five, “PLAINTIFF” should be replaced with

“PETITIONER”; on page one, line 12, “DEFENDANTS” should be replaced with

“DEFENDANT”; on page one, line 17, “2021” should be replaced with “2022”; and

on page three, line five, “(2007)” should be replaced with “(2007) (citation

omitted)”.

Case 3:22-cv-01239-G-BK Document 11 Filed 06/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 28
SO ORDERED.

June 24, 2022.

___________________________________

A. JOE FISH

Senior United States District Judge

- 2 -

Case 3:22-cv-01239-G-BK Document 11 Filed 06/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

VICTORIA VAXTER, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00365-O-BP

 §

UPS, § 

 §

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and any objections 

thereto,1in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the undersigned District Judge believes that 

the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are accepted as the 

Findings and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss (ECF No. 14) and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice. The 

Court also DENIES as moot Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 

24), which she simultaneously filed with her objection on January 5, 2023. 

SO ORDERED this 13th day of January, 2023. 

1 On January 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 23) which the Court construes as a 

timely objection to the Magistrate Judge’s FCR. 

Case 4:22-cv-00365-O Document 25 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 232
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,858
<SECURITIES>                                    37,272
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,101
<ALLOWANCES>                                       588
<INVENTORY>                                        433
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,547
<PP&E>                                          13,241
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,835
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  98,896
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,747
<OTHER-SE>                                      67,794
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    98,896
<SALES>                                         47,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,359
<CGS>                                            7,728
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,456
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,098)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,001
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,350
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,651
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74
        

</TABLE>