alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; Opinion Filed June 26, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 00173

- CV

HICKS ACQUISITION CO MPANY II INC. , Appellant

V.

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY , Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 03679



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Evans

Having settled all issues, the parties hav e filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a). We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See id.

140173F.P05 /David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HICKS ACQUISITION COMPANY II

INC., Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 00173

- CV V.

R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS COMPANY,

Appellee On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 03679.

Opinion delivered by Justice E vans. Justices Fillmore and Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 26th day of June, 2014.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension  Partners  1994-D,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and  statement of  operations
contained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1999 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         1,266
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  31,836
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               33,102
<PP&E>                                         3,172,319
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,315,255)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 890,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          129,972
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     760,194
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   890,166
<SALES>                                        33,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               33,258
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  13,947<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                4,144
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            4,144
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   4,144
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 19, 2018. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, September 19, 2018 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19D0073. ROBERT MITCHELL NAAR v. JUDITH R. NAAR.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 17109418
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 22-0392
KATHAN JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v. CAPTAIN VALDEZ,

Respondent. 

### AUG 0 9 2022
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Cour' St:atE. of NAnntanp ORDER

ln a recently filed Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Kathan Johnson maintains that his incarceration is illegal because he was charged on February 19, 2021, for several offenses and he has not been to trial. He asserts a violation ofhis constitutional right to a speedy trial. He also indicates that his bail is excessive and that his driving under the influence offense has been dismissed twice, violating his right to be free from double jeopardy. Johnson is currently held in the Yellowstone County Detention Center. We addressed Johnson's similar claims about malicious prosecution and illegal incarceration last month. This Court denied and dismissed his petition for habeas corpus relief because Johnson's incarceration was due to his four pending, criminal matters. Johnson v. ThirteenthJudicialDistrict Court andCaptain Valdez,No. OP 22-0370, Order (Mont. July 26, 2022). Not much has changed since our prior Order, except possibly one less pending case in court. Johnson is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Johnson has not dernonstrated want ofbail,pursuantto §46-22-103, MCA,andweconcludethathis incarceration isnotillegal. Upon the issuance offinaljudgments, Johnson has the remedy ofappeal. Section 46-20- 104(1), MCA. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED Johnson's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. 08/09/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0392The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to: the Honorable Michael G.

Moses, District Court Judge; Terry Halpin, Clerk ofDistrict Court, Yellowstone County, under Cause No. DC 21-236; Jacob Andrew Yerger, Yellowstone County Deputy Attorney; Michael Malone, Defense Counsel; Captain Valdez, Yellowstone County Detention Center, and Kathan D. Johnson personally. DATED thisc)4/):-.

1ay ofAugust, 2022.



# /7(,/-2,

Justices

2
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 347 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 347

   To designate July 23, 1994, as ``General Bernardo de Galvez Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 24, 1994

   Mrs. Fowler (for herself, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Diaz-Balart) 
 introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   To designate July 23, 1994, as ``General Bernardo de Galvez Day''.

Whereas few Americans have an appreciation of Spain's role and that of Spanish 
        citizens in the American War of Independence;
Whereas some of the missing pages of history of that fight for freedom and 
        independence have revealed the significant contributions of Spain, and 
        General Bernardo de Galvez in particular, to American history;
Whereas there are strategically important accounts of General de Galvez who, 
        having been appointed Governor of the Louisiana Territory in 1777, 
        sought to provide aid and comfort to American freedom fighters with 
        cattle, money, munitions, uniforms, and other material;
Whereas General de Galvez, the youngest governor of the Spanish colonies, 
        personally led troops against the British, driving them out of the 
        Louisiana Territory and the Gulf of Mexico, assuring their surrender, 
        and ultimately helping to secure Washington's final War of Independence 
        victory at Yorktown;
Whereas General de Galvez is recognized as having played a significant role in 
        our young republic's fight for freedom and independence during the 
        American Revolution;
Whereas his intervention on behalf of the American cause has earned him a place 
        in history as a friend of the American people and a hero of the War of 
        Independence;
Whereas General de Galvez was a vital player in the defense of our great States 
        of Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Texas and captured such 
        cities as Pensacola, Baton Rouge, Natchez, Mobile, San Antonio, and 
        Galveston to aid our young country, and for this reason he should be so 
        honored; and
Whereas General Bernardo de Galvez, a friend of the American people and a hero 
        of the War of Independence, deserves renewed honors and national 
        recognition, particularly on July 23, his birthday: Now, therefore, be 
        it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That July 23 is designated as 
``General Bernardo de Galvez Day'', and the President is authorized and 
requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United 
States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
#### GLENN v. STATE.

No. 25960.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 29, 1952.

Chappell & Chappell, Lubbock, Burks & McNeil, by Burton S. Burks, Lubbock, for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for the unlawful possession of beer for the purpose of sale in a dry area, with punishment assessed at a fine of $500 and six months in jail.

Agents of the Liquor Control Board, under and by virtue of a search warrant, searched the private residence of the appellant and found therein twenty-five twelve-ounce cans of beer and other items such as empty cans and a book or books which the state contended were relevant to the issue as to the purpose for which the beer was possessed.

Exceptions were duly reserved to- the receipt in evidence of the testimony as to the result of the search because, among other things, the search warrant was invalid, being based upon an affidavit not sufficient and valid because of an insufficient. description of the premises to be searched. The description of such premises was set out in the affidavit for search warrant, as follows :

> “A certain private dwelling, located in Lubbock County, Texas, described as (a) *Being a residence located at 222 Ave. U. In Lubbock County, Texas together with all automobiles outbuildings and premises pertaining thereto*

There was no allegation as to the occupancy of the premises to be searched, that is, the name or description of the owner or person in charge thereof, nor was there an allegation that same was unknown.

In Wood v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 243 S.W. 2d - 31, 32, we held that under the express provisions of Art. 666-20, Vernon’s Penal Code, the affidavit for a search warrant to search for intoxicating liquor must set “forth the name or description of the owner or person in charge of the premises to be searched,” or state “that his name and description are unknown * *

*944The instant affidavit does not comply with this mandate oí the statute and the search warrant issued thereon. The search of the residence of appellant thereunder was without authority of law.

This conclusion renders unnecessary a discussion of the other questions presented.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the court. • ■
May 19, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

PRABHAKAR GUNIGANTI, INDIVIDUALLY, THE GUNIGANTI 

CHILDREN’S 1999 TRUST, AND TRIPLE PG SAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 

Appellants

NO. 14-14-00224-CV V.

C & S COMPONENTS COMPANY, LTD., Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, C&S 

Components Company, LTD., signed January 2, 2014, was heard on the transcript 

of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We 

therefore REFORM the judgment of the court below to state that no privity of 

contract existed between C&S Components Company, LTD. and the Guniganti 

Children’s 1999 Trust at the time the lien was filed and therefore C&S 

Components Company, LTD. was not entitled to a lien against the Guniganti 

Children’s 1999 Trust’s property.

We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED except as modified 

in this judgment.

We order appellants, Prabhakar Guniganti and Triple PG Sand 

Development, LLC, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
# Official Journal C 336/6 Oc

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 336 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 606 October 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 336

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 606 October 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 336/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2017/C 336/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 15 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 336/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2017/C 336/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

15

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 336/03 | State aid — Spain — State aid SA.34001 (2017/C) — Alleged aid for Telecom Castilla-La Mancha — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 20 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2017/C 336/03

State aid — Spain — State aid SA.34001 (2017/C) — Alleged aid for Telecom Castilla-La Mancha — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

20

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty.

2

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

EN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

HERIBERTO TELLEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 7:22-cv-00108-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (ECF 

No. 10), filed October 30, 2022; Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to 

Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (ECF No. 20), filed November 2, 2022; and Defendants’ 

Reply in Support of Motion to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (ECF No. 22), filed 

November 3, 2022. Also pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Expedite (ECF No. 

24), filed November 22, 2022. Defendants seek to transfer the above captioned case from the 

Wichita Falls Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

To resolve these motions, the Court ORDERS that oral argument regarding transfer under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404 shall be held on December 22, 2022 at 10:30 a.m. in the Second Floor 

Courtroom of the Federal Courthouse located at 501 West 10th Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102.

Note that the hearing shall occur in the Fort Worth Division of the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas. 

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 2022. 

Case 7:22-cv-00108-O Document 25 Filed 11/23/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 205
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 206 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 206

 To designate the month of October 1993 and October 1994 as ``National 
                    Down Syndrome Awareness Month''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             May  27, 1993

Ms. Norton (for herself and Mr. Ravenel) introduced the following joint 
  resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Post Office and 
                             Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 To designate the month of October 1993 and October 1994 as ``National 
                    Down Syndrome Awareness Month''.

Whereas advancements in education, research, and public awareness are continuing 
        to improve the quality of life for people with Down Syndrome;
Whereas approximately 5,000 children are born with Down Syndrome annually in the 
        United States;
Whereas ignorance, prejudices, myths, and stereotypes regarding Down Syndrome 
        can be overcome only through increased awareness and education;
Whereas, through the efforts of concerned physicians, educators, parent groups, 
        and the National Down Syndrome Society, programs are encouraging 
        communities to include people with Down Syndrome in all school programs, 
        to provide vocational training for individuals with Down Syndrome in 
        preparation for entering the work force, and to prepare young adults 
        with Down Syndrome for independent living and jobs in the community;
Whereas television media has greatly augmented such public awareness and 
        education efforts by casting actors with Down Syndrome and offering 
        programming that accurately and positively depicts the everyday, 
        personal and familial effects of living with individuals with Down 
        Syndrome; and
Whereas many people with Down Syndrome who perform such activities as attending 
        regular schools, playing on Little League teams, working in corporations 
        and businesses large and small, and volunteering in communities 
        demonstrate daily the successes people with Down Syndrome are able to 
        achieve: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That the months of October 
1993 and October 1994, are each designated as ``National Down Syndrome 
Awareness Month''. The President is requested to issue a proclamation 
calling on the people of the United States to observe such months with 
appropriate ceremonies and activities.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6309
RICHARD A. MASSENBURG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus WARDEN, Greensville Correctional Center, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. David G. Lowe, Magistrate Judge. (CA-95-857) Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard A. Massenburg, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(l) (West 1993). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. * We have reviewedthe record and the magistrate judge's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Massenburg v. Warden , No. CA-95-857 (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1996). 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
1The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3311

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri. 

James J. Kavanagh, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: July 7, 1999

 Filed: July 19, 1999

___________

Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BEAM, Circuit

Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

A two-count information charged James Kavanagh with unlawfully occupying

lands located in a water resource development project, without the written permission

of the District Engineer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), in violation of

36 C.F.R. § 327.22(a) (1998); and with failing to comply with a lawful order of Corps

personnel engaged in the performance of their official duties, in violation of 36 C.F.R.

§ 327.24(b) (1998). Following a bench trial, the district court1 found that a lease
-2-

Kavanagh had entered into with the Corps was lawfully terminated because of his

failure to comply with applicable regulations, and that to the extent there was a factual

dispute concerning Kavanagh’s refusal to leave his property at the request of Corps

personnel, the government had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had refused

an order to leave. 

On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), suggesting the evidence was insufficient to support Kavanagh’s convictions.

After evaluating the record in the light most favorable to the government, see United

States v. Walcott, 61 F.3d 635, 638 (8th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1132

(1996), we conclude the government’s evidence was sufficient to convict Kavanagh of

both offenses: the evidence showed Kavanagh continued to maintain his full-time

residence on the property subject to the lease after his lease was terminated, and then

refused to leave the site when ordered to do so by Corps personnel. See 36 C.F.R.

§§ 327.22(a), 327.24(b) (1998); cf. United States v. Arbo, 691 F.2d 862, 865-66 (9th

Cir. 1982).

We have reviewed the record for any nonfrivolous issues, see Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and have found none.

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.