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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

SHANNA DUNKLEBARGER, §

 § 

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00804-O-BP

 §

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING §

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL §

SECURITY, §

 §

Defendant. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the plaintiff’s Unopposed Application for Attorney Fees Under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act filed May 18, 2023. ECF No. 23. After reviewing the Application and 

applicable legal authorities, noting that the defendant does not oppose the Application, and for 

good cause shown, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed 

O’Connor GRANT the Application.

The Court finds that the plaintiff, Shanna Dunklebarger, was the prevailing party in this 

case. The Court further finds, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(A), that the appropriate hourly 

rate at which to award fees in this case is $214.00 per hour for services performed in 2023. The 

Court further finds that the plaintiff is entitled to recover compensation for attorney services 

incurred of 20.42 hours, for an attorney fee award of $4,369.88.

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court ORDER the defendant to

pay the plaintiff, Shanna Dunklebarger, and mail to her attorney, Jonathan Heeps, Law Office of 

Jonathan A. Heeps, P.O. Box 173472, Arlington, TX 76003, attorney fees under the Equal Access 

Case 4:22-cv-00804-O Document 24 Filed 08/10/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 2033
2

to Justice Act, in the total amount of $4,369.88 for 20.42 hours of service in 2023 at a rate of 

$214.00 per hour.

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties 

in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, 

and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

identify the particular finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for 

the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th 

Cir. 1996) (en banc).

SIGNED on August 10, 2023. 

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00804-O Document 24 Filed 08/10/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 2034
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER01-365-000]

      ( print page 69757)    
Take notice that on November 3, 2000, AmerenCIPS tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation stating that effective as of June 12, 2000, Rate Schedule FERC No. 97, dated June 1, 1988, (Docket No. ER 88-439) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by Central Illinois Public Service Company is to be canceled.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests must be filed on or before November 24, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-29594 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

GARY BARTONE,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 504 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

124) IV-C-90 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:57 AM Sheet 124 of 232 
^ 

•""I 

P.2 

Honorable Paul C. (Buddy) Scruggs 

112 War Memorial Buildino 

Nashville, TN 37219 

Dear Mr. Scruggs: 

This is in response to your February 5, 1988 letfc 

Administrator Lee Thomas concerning the safety implies 

KPA* 9 proposal to require onboard vapor recovery 

future vehicles.- EPA is concerned about vehicle safetf) 

taking all possible steps to resolve the safety issttjj 

proceeding with a final rule. 

In support of our August 19, 1987 onboard proposal *m 

performed an analysis entitled "Safety Implications of Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems." I have enclosed a copy of 

this report for your use. This report addressed the concerns 

which had been raised previously and discussed potential 

solutions. 

As vou inav know, we held public hearinos on the proposal 

in October ^987 and have receive-^ many written comments from 

interested Parties. We arp now in the process of reviewing 

se co^rcents. In the near future we will be revising our 

-tv analysis in response to th?- c its received. As Part 

>nsultation process ith the Department of 

asportation (DOT) we 11 provide our revised analysis bo 

tor review and corcment* After receive DOT'S comments we 

repropose the n:l« tnr ouh.1 '-. believe that 

process will allow for - copolete • '•"' thorough r^vl^w of 

safety question. 

SDSB:Carlson:Di11i pg ^am• ? 5^R Plymouthfcd.:X270:2/26/88:IP#s5773W 

Cast revi-v0-

1 by Charles Grav^V1 

AX8I 
P.3 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGEWCY 

MAR 2 2 1988 

CENTRAL DOCKET 

SECTION 
P.4 

Thank vou for v•,.H,.'" 1 ^tts r nnO v.-'j" i, n t*>T"t- ••-~ t"hc onoo-' 

•/noor recovery orooo:- .•;'.. V'<? wi 1 "* r-i.r.c-'.- 7r»;vr ii^ttc- ;n i 

r- u >."> 3 .\c docket for t h .1 s ru 1 e; ~ ;> k i n q. 

Enclosur e 

c c : Docket A-87-11 

Sincerely , 

Ity j. Crai 3

« Potk 

J. Craig Potter 

Assistant Administrator 

Office of Air & Radiation
Case 4:22-cr-00275-P Document 29 Filed 10/12/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 54
Case 4:22-cr-00275-P Document 29 Filed 10/12/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 55
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

JOSEPH SCHIMES,

Petitioner

v.

CITY OF SCRANTON NON

- UNIFORM PENSION BOARD; MAYOR WILLIAM COURTRIGHT, AND CITY OF SCRANTON,

Respondents :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 519 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of March, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
v

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

In re:

zuCHARD K. ARCHER and

RUTH E. ARCHER

Debtors

KENT RIES, Chapter 7 Trustee,

Plaintiff/Appellant,

2:22-CY-198-2

ESTELLE ARCHER, et al.,

Defendants/Appellees.

ORDER

Before the Court are the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the United States

Bankruptcy Judge (ECF No. l-7) conceming two Archer family farm properties (the "Property"),

transfer of title to the Property, and, therefore, whether the Property is part of the bankruptcy estate.

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are ADOPTED, and the Bankruptcy Court's order

is AFFIRMED.

The Bankruptcy Court concluded "that Archer did deliver the deeds and did so with intent

to effect conveyance of both farms." ECF No. l-7 at 23. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court

ordered that: (l) "the Moore County Farm and the Randall County Farm do not constitute property

of the bankruptcy estate"; (2) "all relief requested by the Trustee is denied"; and (3) "the

Defendants' request for an award of attorney's fees is denied." ECF No. l-6. PlaintifVAppellant

timely appealed pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3,4(a)(l)(A), and 6, and Federal

Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002. See ECF No. l-5. This Court has jurisdiction to review the

Case 2:22-cv-00198-Z Document 12 Filed 11/21/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1800
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law under 28 U.S.C. Section 158. The parties thoroughly

briefed the issues presented. See ECF Nos. 6-1 l.

Appeals from a bankruptcy court are taken in the district court. 28 U.S.C. $ 158(c)(2). The

district court reviews legal conclusions de novo. In re Perry, 345 F.3d 303, 309 (5th Cir. 2003).

However, factual findings must be found "clearly erroneous" 

- 

that is, implausible "in the light

of the record read as a whole" 

- 

in order to disregard them. Id.; see also In re Ramba, Inc.,416

F.3d 394, 402 (5thCir.2002). The burden is a high one, requiring "the definite and firm conviction

that a mistake has been committed," In re Perry,345 F.3d at 309, not merely that the district court

would have weighed the evidence differently, In re Munn, 643 B.R. 141,152 (N.D. Tex.2002).

Similarly, the district court evaluates a bankruptcy court's equitable considerations under the abuse

of discretion standard. In re Kolstad, 928 F.2d I 7l, 173 (5th Cir. l99l ).

Having considered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the record, the parties'

briefs, and relevant law, the Court is convinced that the Bankruptcy Court correctly decided the

issues of law. Therefore, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are ADOPTED as the

opinion of this Court. The Bankruptcy Court's order denying the Trustee's causes of action and

requested forms of reliel including attorney's fees, is AFFIRMED

SO ORDERED.

November fl,ron

MA W J. KACSMARYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT ruDGE

2

Case 2:22-cv-00198-Z Document 12 Filed 11/21/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1801
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                  5                                    
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                                    296,037               
<SECURITIES>                                                    0               
<RECEIVABLES>                                           2,353,008               
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0               
<INVENTORY>                                                     0               
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          773,693               
<PP&E>                                                    781,076               
<DEPRECIATION>                                            117,280               
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          9,824,324               
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   1,067,021               
<BONDS>                                                         0               
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0               
<PREFERRED>                                                     0               
<COMMON>                                                      282               
<OTHER-SE>                                              9,824,042               
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            9,824,324               
<SALES>                                                         0               
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          386,460               
<CGS>                                                     240,340               
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             367,868               
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         (319,269)              
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0               
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          9,316               
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            88,205               
<INCOME-TAX>                                               20,173               
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        68,032               
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0               
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0               
<CHANGES>                                                       0               
<NET-INCOME>                                               46,612               
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                 .02               
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 .02               
        

</TABLE>
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID 129
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID 130
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID 131
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID 132
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID 133
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID 134
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID 135
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID 136
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID 137
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID 138
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID 139
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID 140
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID 141
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID 142
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID 143
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID 144
Case 5:22-cv-00253-H-BQ Document 12 Filed 12/29/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID 145
Order entered January 10, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 01489
- CR
WILLIAM PAUL LANGRUM , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 60330
- L



### O RDER
The Court GRANTS court reporter Vicki L. Tuck’s January 8, 2014 motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record.
We ORDER Ms. Tuck to file the reporter’s record within FORTY
- FIVE (45) DAYS
from the date of th is order.
We ORDER the Dallas County District Clerk to file the clerk’s record within FORTY
FIVE (45) DAYS from the date of this order.
We ORDER the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Gary FitzSimmons, Dallas County District Clerk.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Case 4:22-cr-00253-P Document 11 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 15
# Official Journal C 87/2008

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 87 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 518 April 2008 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 87

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 518 April 2008

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 087/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2008/C 087/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4896 — CVC Capital Partners/Katope International) (1) | 4 |
| 2008/C 087/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5049 — Goldman Sachs/Colony Capital/But) (1) | 4 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 087/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2008/C 087/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4896 — CVC Capital Partners/Katope International) (1)

4

2008/C 087/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.5049 — Goldman Sachs/Colony Capital/But) (1)

4

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 087/04 | Euro exchange rates | 5 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

Commission

2008/C 087/04

Euro exchange rates

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 087/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5113 — Abe Investment/Getty) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 6 |
| 2008/C 087/06 | Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5106 — Candover/Bourne Leisure) (1) | 7 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | Commission |
| 2008/C 087/07 | Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

Commission

2008/C 087/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5113 — Abe Investment/Getty) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

6

2008/C 087/06

Withdrawal of notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.5106 — Candover/Bourne Leisure) (1)

7

OTHER ACTS

Commission

2008/C 087/07

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
Case 3:22-cv-03276-C-BK Document 15 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
# Official Journal L 158/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2555
  doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.158.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 158 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5324 June 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2555

doi:10.3000/17252555.L_2010.158.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 158

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5324 June 2010

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards certain provisions relating to financial management | 1 |
| | * | Regulation (EU) No 540/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) | 7 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) No 539/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund as regards simplification of certain requirements and as regards certain provisions relating to financial management

1

*

Regulation (EU) No 540/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 2010 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 establishing an Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA)

7

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.