alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### ELLISON et ux. v. NATIONAL LOAN *&*INVESTMENT CO.

No. 8846.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 25, 1932.

Rehearing Denied July 13, 1932.

*110Peyton A. Ellison and Hoyt A. Armstrong, both of Dallas,, for plaintiffs in error.

J. M. Mothershead, of Harlingen, for ap-pellee. ,

FLY, C. J.

This is a suit on a promissory note for a balance of $3,793.12, and for a foreclosure of a lien created' by a contemporaneous deed of trust on lot No. 1, block No. 3, Austin Acres, an addition to the city of Harlingen, in Cameron county.

The suit was instituted by the defendant in error against Ernest Fryck and wife, Jessie Fryck, and W. M. Ellison and wife,. Louise Cook Ellison, who were the makers of the note and lien, and T..T. Dominy, trustee, and San Benito Bank & Trust Company. The trustee and bank filed disclaimers and- were dismissed from the suit. Plaintiffs in error filed admissions that they executed the note and mortgage, but filed a cross-action against Fryck and wife, and asked that they be held primarily liable for the debt and that they have judgment against the Frycks for foreclosure of an implied vendor’s lien or an equitable lien on lots 24 and 35 in said block 3, which, together with lot No. 1, had been conveyed to Fryck and wife by plaintiffs in error. In that deed the consideration was recited as $10 and the assumption of the debt due defendant in error. Fryck denied assumption of the debt due defendant in error.

The cause was heard by the court without a jury, and judgment rendered in favor of defendant in error for $4,172.43, against Fryck and wife primarily, and Ellison and wife secondarily, and the lien was foreclosed on lot No. 1, herein described. The court further decreed that there was no fraud in the transfer by the Ellisons to the. Frycks of lot No. 1, and they were denied a recovery against the Frycks.

¶1⁄8 judgment in favor of the National Loan & Investment Company is not assailed by plaintiffs in error in this court and their error bond is only made payable to that company. The only assignment of error is as follows: “The Court erred in failing and refusing to grant W. M. Ellison and wife, Louise Cook Ellison, a foreclosure of an equitable lien on lots 24 and 25 in block 3, Austin Acres addition to the City of Harlingen, Texas, because the consideration for the transfer of said lots to Ernest Fryk and Jessie Fryk was their assumption and agreement to pay the indebtedness against lot #1, in favor of The National Loan and Investment Company, which they failed to pay.”

The issue sought to be presented in that assignment of error in no way touches any interest of defendant in error, and it' follows that the *judgment*should be affirmed.

Affirmed.
H. Con. Res. 86 Agreed to April 23, 2009

One Hundred Eleventh Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the sixth day of January, two thousand and nine 

Concurrent Resolution 

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

SECTION 1. USE OF EMANCIPATION HALL FOR UNVEILING OF 

SOJOURNER TRUTH BUST. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor 

Center is authorized to be used for an event on April 28, 2009, 

to unveil a bust of Sojourner Truth. 

(b) PREPARATIONS.—Physical preparations for the conduct of 

the ceremony described in subsection (a) shall be carried out in 

accordance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the 

Architect of the Capitol. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-40768

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Santo Leone, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-962-1

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Santo Leone, federal prisoner # 27152-379, was convicted of one 

charge of conspiring to possess at least 1,000 kilograms of marijuana with 

intent to distribute and was sentenced, due to his prior felony drug 

conviction, to serve the enhanced statutory minimum of 240 months in 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 2, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-40768 Document: 00516115345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2021
No. 20-40768

2

prison and a 10-year term of supervised release. Now, he appeals the district 

court’s denial of his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because he presents no arguments related to the district 

court’s conclusion that he should not receive § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief based 

on his increased risk for COVID-19, he has abandoned any challenges he may 

have had to this ruling. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 

1993). Because the issue whether he exhausted his administrative rights is 

not jurisdictional, we pretermit it. See United States v. Franco, 973 F.3d 465, 

468 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 920 (2020).

This court reviews a district court’s decision denying compassionate 

release under § 3582(c)(1)(A) for an abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). A district court abuses its 

discretion when its decision is grounded in a legal error or clearly erroneous 

facts. Id.

Leone has not met this standard. He shows no legal error in the 

district court’s conclusions that his various arguments concerning his 

sentence failed to raise an extraordinary and compelling reason warranting 

relief. See id.; see also § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Additionally, because the district 

court concluded there were no extraordinary and compelling reasons 

meriting relief, there was no need for it to consider the § 3553(a) factors. See

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). Finally, insofar as he argues that this court should order a 

full resentencing, this is inappropriate. See United States v. Golding, 742 F.2d 

840, 841 (5th Cir. 1984). Leone’s motion for appointed counsel is 

DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-40768 Document: 00516115345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2021
Exhibit 32.01

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF
THE UNITED STATES CODE

I, Harvey Beker, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn Ridgefield
Corporation, the Managing Owner of The Millburn World Resource Trust (the
"Trust"), certify that (i) the Quarterly Report of the Trust on Form 10-Q for
the period ending June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information
contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



 /s/ Harvey Beker
 -------------------------
 Harvey Beker
 Co-Chief Executive Officer
 August 12, 2004
#### PEAKE v. STATE.

No. 15902.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1933.

V. L. Shurtleff, of Port Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is forgery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of two years.

The indictment is regular and regularly presented. The evidence heard on the trial is not brought up for review. The motion to postpone, the exceptions to the reception of evidence, and the complaints of the charge of the court cannot be reviewed in the absence of the statement of facts.

Perceiving no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed. .
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 149

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate the provision

that permits payments from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund

for the expenses of presidential nominating conventions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 5, 1993

Mr. CRANE introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Ways and Means and House Administration

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to eliminate

the provision that permits payments from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund for the expenses of

presidential nominating conventions.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF SECTION 9008 OF THE INTERNAL

4 REVENUE CODE OF 1986.

5 Chapter 95 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is

6 amended by striking out section 9008.
2

HR 149 IH

1 SEC. 2. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

2 The table of sections for chapter 95 of the Internal

3 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking out the item

4 relating to section 9008.

Æ
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1499

To modify the flood control project for the Little Calumet River, Indiana,

to direct the Secretary of the Army to provide a local preference in

awarding contracts to carry out the project, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 25, 1993

Mr. VISCLOSKY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

To modify the flood control project for the Little Calumet

River, Indiana, to direct the Secretary of the Army to

provide a local preference in awarding contracts to carry

out the project, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PURPOSES.

4 The purposes of this Act are as follows:

5 (1) To ensure maximum participation of local

6 contractors in construction of the flood control

7 project for the Little Calumet River, Indiana.
2

•HR 1499 IH

1 (2) To ensure maximum employment of local la2 borers in completion of work on the project.

3 (3) To enhance implementation of the 40 per4 cent goal for minority participation established by

5 the Army Corps of Engineers for the project.

6 SEC. 2. PROJECT MODIFICATION.

7 The project for flood control, Little Calumet River,

8 Indiana, authorized by section 401(a) of the Water Re9 sources Development Act of 1986 (100 Stat. 4115), is

10 modified to direct the Secretary of the Army—

11 (1) in awarding contracts to carry out the

12 project, to give a preference to contractors whose

13 principal place of business is in Lake or Porter

14 County, Indiana; and

15 (2) to take such action as may be necessary to

16 ensure that, in completing work on the project, a

17 preference is given to laborers residing in such coun18 ties.

Æ
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 16

- 00438

- CR

Mark Mercer

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From the 396th District Court

o f Tarrant County (1402716D )

October 26, 2017

Opinion by Just ice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

Justice Lee Gabriel
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1271 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2351 West Atlantic Boulevard in Pompano 

Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office 

Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 1271 EH

1 SECTION 1. ELIJAH PAT LARKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 2351 West Atlantic Boulevard 

4 in Pompano Beach, Florida, shall be known and des5 ignated as the ‘‘Elijah Pat Larkins Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Elijah Pat Larkins 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 5, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1271 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostPat Larkins Post Office Building’’. vard in Pompano Beach, Florida, as the ‘‘Elijah al Service located at 2351 West Atlantic Boule-
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0730 Directorate Identifier: 2013NM206AD

90 - 25 - 012, I 3 --- 10/03/01 90 - 25 - 012 , I4 --- 1 2 / 19 / 01

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1


                                       
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement 
(No. 333-11291) on Form S-8 of Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated of our report 
dated February 5, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of 
Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 29, 1998, and 
December 30, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of operations, 
stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year 
period ended December 29, 1998, and the related financial statement schedule, 
which report appears in the December 29, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K of 
Furr's/Bishop's, Incorporated.



                                                                 KPMG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 24, 1999
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), the undersigned, Jerome C. Artigliere, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer of Global Digital Solutions, Inc., (the
"Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report Form 10-QSB for the three months ended March 31,
2004 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.

Date:       May 17, 2004

By /s/Jerome C. Artigliere
   ----------------------
Jerome C. Artigliere
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 4, 2008*

#### JOHN BOYCE VS. DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS

(CC-08-0016)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Charles P. Houdyschell Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Answer.

Claimant, an inmate at the Mount Olive Correctional Complex, seeks compensation for lost wages in the amount of $28.62. On August 27,2007, claimant was injured while performing work-related duties and asserts that respondent has a duty to pay inmate workers for lost wages when they are injured on the job.

In its Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim and that the amount is fair and reasonable. The Court is aware that respondent does not have a fiscal method for paying claims of this nature; therefore, the claim has been submitted to this Court for determination.

Accordingly, the Court makes an award to the claimant herein in the amount of $28.62.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 71150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30370]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-43607; File No. 265-22]


Advisory Committee on Market Information

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission 
Advisory Committee on Market Information.

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

SUMMARY: The second meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission 
Advisory Committee on Market Information (``Committee'') will be held 
on December 14, 2000, in the William O. Douglas Room, at the 
Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC., 
beginning at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public, and the 
public is invited to submit written comments to the Committee.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate and 
should refer to File No. 265-22. Comments should be submitted to 
Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anitra Cassas, Special Counsel, 
Division of Market Regulation, at 202-942-0089; Securities and Exchange 
Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-1001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with Section 10(a) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10a, and the regulations 
thereunder, the Designated Federal Official of the Committee, David S. 
Shillman, has ordered publication of this notice that the Committee 
will conduct a meeting on December 14, 2000, in the William O. Douglas 
Room at the Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC., beginning at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the 
public. This will be the second meeting of the Committee. The purpose 
of this meeting will be to discuss appropriate models for consolidating 
and disseminating market information, and other issues relating to the 
public availability of market information in the equities and options 
markets.

    Dated: November 21, 2000.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30370 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Onelio Parrada, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldman, J.), rendered December 6, 1988, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly failed to give limiting instructions when the prosecutor, on cross-examination, elicited the defendant’s previously suppressed statement, is unpreserved for appellate review. We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
#### Frances M. Maher, Respondent, v Alfred Julien et al., Appellants. Frances M. Maher, Appellant, v Alfred Julien et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered on or about May 29, 1990, which granted plaintiff’s motion to renew and, upon renewal, recalled and vacated the prior order of Justice Andrew Tyler and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Order of the same court, entered August 29, 1990, which denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her pleadings to include a *346claim for punitive damages, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The instant legal malpractice action stems from defendants’ representation of plaintiff in her medical malpractice action. It is alleged that as a result of defendants’ failure to comply with the rules regarding the exchange of medical records, a doctor was substantially precluded from testifying in favor of plaintiff’s claim. According to plaintiff, only upon the urging of defendants, she settled the medical malpractice case for $125,000.

After realizing the error that had occurred with regard to the failure to exchange medical records, and the resultant damage to her case, plaintiff instituted this legal malpractice action in 1983. In 1988, defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint; plaintiff opposed the motion on procedural grounds, but nevertheless, requested an additional three weeks to prepare opposition on the merits since the motion was made on the eve of trial and five years after the case had begun.

Four months later, Justice Tyler granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. He noted that plaintiff requested a three-week adjournment to oppose the motion on the merits, but never addressed that request.

Accordingly, plaintiff moved to renew and to vacate Justice Tyler’s order. The case came before Justice Burton Sherman as a result of Justice Tyler’s death. Justice Sherman granted plaintiff’s motion to renew and denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff then sought to amend her complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The IAS court denied said request.

The IAS court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal *(see, Sciascia v Nevins,*130 AD2d 649). It appears that plaintiff believed that she would be notified if the court deemed submission of further papers in opposition to the motion necessary, and under these circumstances it was clearly appropriate to grant renewal.

We agree with the IAS court that plaintiff presented adequate evidence to defeat the summary judgment motion *(see, Alverez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320, 327). Further, as there is no merit to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages it was proper for the IAS court to deny plaintiff’s motion to amend her pleadings to add such a claim. *(See, East Asiatic Co. v Corash,*34 AD2d 432.)

We have considered the parties’ other claims and find them *347to be without merit. Concur—Ross, J. P., Carro, Asch, Wallach and Smith, JJ.