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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

SONYA CHAPMAN, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-CV-2188-D 

 § 

ADT LLC, § (Consolidated with: 

 § No. 3:23-CV-0799-D) 

Defendant. § 

ORDER 

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a 

recommendation in these consolidated cases on August 25, 2023 (ECF No. 34). On 

September 8, 2023 plaintiff filed objections (ECF No. 38). The undersigned district 

judge has reviewed de novo the 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. Finding no error, the 

court adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge. 

Accordingly, the court denies plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 32), denies 

her request to reconsider (ECF No. 33), and affirms the magistrate judge’s August 

Case 3:22-cv-02188-D-BN Document 42 Filed 09/27/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 535
22, 2023 order (ECF No. 31). 

SO ORDERED. 

September 27, 2023. 

 ___________________________________ 

 SIDNEY A. FITZWATER 

 SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-02188-D-BN Document 42 Filed 09/27/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 536
#### Jim HARDIN v. STATE.

No. 15856.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 8, 1933.

A. C. Chrisman, of Cleburne, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Arson is the offense; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment is regular and regularly presented. The facts heard before the trial court are not brought up for review. No error has been perceived which would vitiate the judgment of conviction.

A plea of guilty was entered and a jury was waived. We have not been favored with a ■brief, but assume that the appeal is predicated upon the theory that article 10a, C. C. P., as it appears in chapter 43, Acts of 42nd Legislature (1931), Regular Session (Vernon’s Ann. C. C. P. art. 10a), in which, in a case less than capital, one accused of a felony is privileged to enter a plea of guilty authorizing a conviction by the judge, is contrary to the Constitution. The subject has been discussed in the case of McMillan v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 57 S.W.(2d) 125, in which the validity of the statute has been upheld.

Upon the authority of the case mentioned, the judgment is affirmed.
#### PARKER v. STATE.

No. 20481.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 18, 1939.

*274T. H. Briggs and W. A. McIntosh, both of Gilmer, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of theft from the person, and assessed a penalty of two years in the penitentiary.

There is no statement of facts in the record.

There are two bills of exception in the transcript, in which the burden of the complaint seems to be based upon the failure of the trial court to give two certain special instructions to the jury relative to appellant’s supposed defense. Unfortunately we do not know what that defense was on account of the lack of a statement of facts in the record.

Under the circumstances we are not able to pass upon the correctness of the trial court’s ruling in such absence.

The procedural matters as well as the indictment appear to be regular.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
#### NEW HOME SEWING MACH. CO. v. WITHROW.

No. 2252.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 17, 1940.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 31, 1940.

Renfro Speed, of Teague, for appellant.

Geppert, Geppert & Victery, of Teague, for appellee.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This suit was brought by New Home Sewing Machine Company against W. W. Withrow to recover the sum of $393.70, being the balance claimed to be due for the sale price of certain sewing machines alleged to have been sold to the defendant under a written contract. The defendant contended that he had bought the machines under an oral contract, by the terms of which'- he was to pay a stipulated price for such of the machines as he was able to sell at retail, with the right to return the remainder of the unsold machines. He alleged that he had been induced to sign the written agreement sued on upon a false representation of plaintiff’s agent that it embodied the terms of the oral contract previously entered into. He tendered the contract price of the machines that he had sold and offered to return the unsold machines. A trial before the court without a jury resulted in judgment in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $106.30, being the unpaid balance due on the machines that had been sold, and for the title and possession of the six machines that had not been sold by Withrow. The plaintiff appealed.

The trial court found the facts as alleged by the defendant and appellant does not seem to challenge the correctness of this finding. It is appellant’s contention that since it did not pray for judgment for the title and possession of the unsold machines, the judgment of the court granting' such relief is fundamentally wrong.

It is a very well established rule that in determining the relief which may be accorded, it is proper to take into consideration the pleadings of both parties, and that if either party prays for relief and shows himself entitled thereto by the evidence, the court may grant it notwithstanding the pleadings of the opposite party. 25 Tex. Jur. 511. The defendant alleged that the unsold machines belonged to the plaintiff. He tendered such machines to the plaintiff, together 'with the contract price of such of the machines as he had sold and prayed that he be discharged. Regardless of whether such pleading was sufficient to *972authorize a judgment in favor of the plaintiff for such machines, it was certainly sufficient to authorize a judgment discharging the defendant upon delivery of such unsold machines, together with the money tendered by the defendant into court. At most, the judgment is merely more favorable to the plaintiff than it prayed for, and it is a well settled rule that a plaintiff cannot complain on appeal of a judgment merely because it is more favorable to him than he was entitled to under the .pleadings and evidence. 3 Tex.Jur. 1274; Texas Trunk R. Co. v. Johnson, 86 Tex. 421, 25 S.W. 417, par. 2; Celada v. A. Mathias & Co., Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W. 459, par. 8.

There is no error in the judgment appealed from, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Lynch, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered November 9, 1989, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts) under indictment No. 89-00091, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of 7 to 21 years’ imprisonment on each count, and ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the Rockland County Narcotics Task Force in the amount of $50, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered November 9, 1989, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, under indictment No. 89-00094, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment, to run concurrent with the sentence imposed upon indictment No. 89-00091.

Ordered that the judgment imposed under indictment No. 89-00091 is modified, by deleting therefrom the provision which ordered the defendant to pay restitution to the Rock-land County Narcotics Task Force in the amount of $50; as so modified, that judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment imposed upon indictment No. 89-00094 is affirmed.

In light of the recent holding of the Court of Appeals that a police department expending drug "buy” money is not considered a "victim” (Penal Law § 60.27) entitled to restitution, the People concede that restitution was improperly directed *(see, People v Rowe,*75 NY2d 948).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1069 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1069

   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the 
historical and cultural resources in the vicinity of the city of Lynn, 
Massachusetts, and make recommendations on the appropriate role of the 
 Federal Government in preserving and interpreting such historical and 
                          cultural resources.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 23, 1993

 Mr. Torkildsen (for himself, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Markey, Mr. Studds, Mr. 
  Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. 
Olver, Mr. Blute, and Mr. Meehan) introduced the following bill; which 
           was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the 
historical and cultural resources in the vicinity of the city of Lynn, 
Massachusetts, and make recommendations on the appropriate role of the 
 Federal Government in preserving and interpreting such historical and 
                          cultural resources.

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

SECTION 1. LYNN, MASSACHUSETTS.

    (a) Study of Potential National Historic Landmarks.--The Secretary 
of the Interior (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
``Secretary'') shall conduct a study to identify potential National 
Historic Landmarks in Lynn, Massachusetts. The study shall emphasize 
the processes of industrialization, urbanization and immigration in 
order to identify resources significant and unique in the larger 
context of American history. As part of the study, the Secretary shall 
propose alternatives for cooperation in the preservation and 
interpretation of potential National Historic Landmarks identified in 
the study and for the preservation and interpretation of existing 
national historic landmarks in Lynn.
    (b) Congressional Review.--The Secretary shall transmit the study 
to the appropriate committees of Congress within 18 months after the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Consultation.--In preparing the study under this section, the 
Secretary shall consult with the public, with representatives of the 
city of Lynn and the commonwealth of Massachusetts, with historians, 
planners and historic preservationists knowledgeable in American 
history, historic preservation, and architecture. The Secretary shall 
seek expertise from both local and national organizations.
    (d) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated $200,000 
to carry out this Act.

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

No. 15129.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 6, 1932.

W. S. Birge, of Amarillo, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for six years.

*274The injured party, John Humphrey, testified that on September 15,1931, at 10:45 p. m., appellant and another mían robbed him of eighteen dollars and his watch, while he was riding on a highway near Amarillo. According to his version, the parties drove their automobile practically against his car and forced him to stop. Exhibiting a pistol, appellant and his companion took his money and watch, threw his car keys away, and punctured his casings. Appellant had a stub thumb, which the injured party observed while appellant was holding the pistol in his hand. A young lady who was in the car with the injured party had known appellant for several months; it appearing that she and appellant worked for the Harmon Motor Company in Amarillo. She positively identified'appellant as being one of the participants in the robbery.

Testifying in his own behalf, appellant denied that he was on the highway at the time the offense was committed. He said he was at his rooming house and had retired for the night. He declared that he did not leave his room on the night in question. The owner of the rooming house, as well as other witnesses, testified to having seen appellant in the rooming house at 10:45 p. m.

The jury were warranted in rejecting appellant’s defensive theory. The evidence Is sufficient to support the conviction.

In his amended motion for new trial, appellant alleged that the jury were guilty of misconduct. He attached the affidavits of no jurors to the motion. It appears from the order overruling the motion for new trial that the court heard evidence. The evidence is not brought forward.

The judgment is affirmed.

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
* Pursuant to Local 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-10288

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHN DARWIN EADS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:95-CV-368-E

_________________________________________________________________ January 13, 1997

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Eads (# 95443-131) has appealed the district c ourt’s

denial of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and coram nobis relief relative to his

conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a). He has served

his sentence for this offense, but he contends that the conviction

has adversely affected the federal bank robbery sentence that he is

now serving and that it has other adverse consequences.-2-

This action actually is one for § 2255 relief from the

sentence for the bank robbery conviction. S ee Meleng v. Cook

, 490

U.S. 488, 491-94 (1989). The district court did not err in denying

§ 2255 relie f because Eads failed to show that his bank robbery

sentence was adversely aff ected by the prior conviction. S ee

Hendrix v. Lynaugh

, 888 F.2d 336, 337-38 (5th Cir. 1980) (28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 habeas corpus case). Eads is not entitled to corum nobis

relief relative to the § 1202(a) conviction because, even were that

conviction declared invalid, it would have no effect on his current

sentence. The enhancement of his bank robbery sentence was based

on his committing that offense while released on bond for his §

1202(a) offense, not for the conviction itself. Eads has not shown

that he is “suffering civil disabilities as a consequence of the {§

1202(a)] conviction[].” S ee United States v. Castro

, 26 F.3d 557,

559 (5th Cir. 1994). For these reasons, the district court’s

denial of relief is

A F F I R M E D.
## -~GL~tp :~'~~ ~- Q"e e")a

. IDEM INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT We Protect Hoosiers and Our Environment. Mitchell E

. Daniels, Jr. Governor Thomas W

Erasterly Commissioner 100 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

(317) 232-8603 Toil Free (800) 451-6027 www .idem .iN.gov October 27, 2011 Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals fromElectric Utilities Attention Docket ID No., EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392 Environmental Protection Agency Mailcode: 28221T 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,~NW Washington, DC20460 . Dear Madam/Sir: - 

# ov ® 3 2011

Re: Requestfor Extension of the Comment Period for the Notice of Data Availability and Request for Comment for Hazardous and Solid Waste Management System : Identification and Listing of Special Wastes; Disposal of Coal Combustion Residuals fromElectric Utilities (Docket ID# EPA-HQ-RCRA-2011-0392) The Office of Land Quality staff at IDEM are reviewing the referenced document relative to data attributed to Indiana. However, in order to provide a comprehensive evaluation and beneficial feedback, more time is needed. Verification of the volume of information provided is not a simple task, and management review of the comments produced takes time. Given the impact of decisions relative to the future regulatory requirements that may be applied to coal combustion residuals, it is critical that the data that is relied upon to make those decisions is as accurate as possible. I amrequesting a 90day extension to the 30 day comment period in order to allow for production of good quality, well vetted comments that should be considered before any decisions are made.



# OCT 2 8 2011

Recycled Pp- $ An Equal flpporcunity Employer Please Recycle w~
*OPINION ISSUED OCTOBER 29, 2007*

#### EARL D. FERGUSON VS. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

(CC-06-282)

Claimant appeared *pro se.*

Andrew F. Tarr, Attorney at Law, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted to the Court for decision upon a Stipulation entered into by claimant and respondent wherein certain facts and circumstances of the claim were agreed to as follows:

1. On September 20, 2006, claimant Earl D. Ferguson was traveling on Route 52 in Mingo County when his 2006 Ford Fusion struck a hole as he was traveling from Varney to Delbarton, West Virginia.

2. Respondent was responsible for the maintenance of Route 52 which it failed to properly maintain on the date of this incident.

3. As a result of this incident, claimant’s vehicle sustained damages in the amount of $288.58.

4. Respondent agrees that the amount of $288.58 for the damages put forth by the claimant is fair and reasonable.

The Court has reviewed the facts of the claim and finds that respondent was negligent in its maintenance of Route 52 on the date of this incident; that the negligence of respondent was the proximate cause of the damages sustained to claimant’s vehicle; and that the amount of the damages agreed to by the parties is fair and reasonable. Thus, claimant may make a recovery for his loss.

Accordingly, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award in the amount of $288.58.

Award of $288.58.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cheryl Cobb, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), both rendered September 27, 1989, convicting her of attempted grand larceny in the third degree under indictment No. 110/85, and bail jumping in the second degree under indictment No. 190/88, respectively, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
# Europos Sąjungos C 42A/2017

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 42A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 60 metai2017m. vasario 9d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 42A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

60 metai2017m. vasario 9d.

---

| Pranešimo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Eurojustas |
| 2017/C 42 A/01 | Pranešimas dėl Eurojusto administracijos direktoriaus laisvų pareigybių (AD 14 rangas) – Haga, Nyderlandai – 17/EJ/01 | 1 |

Pranešimo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Eurojustas

2017/C 42 A/01

Pranešimas dėl Eurojusto administracijos direktoriaus laisvų pareigybių (AD 14 rangas) – Haga, Nyderlandai – 17/EJ/01

1

---

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Eurojustas

| 9.2.2017 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 42/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2017

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 42/1

---

Pranešimas dėl Eurojusto administracijos direktoriaus laisvų pareigybių (AD 14 rangas) – Haga, Nyderlandai – 17/EJ/01

(2017/C 042 A/01)

Eurojustas kviečia pateikti paraiškas Eurojusto administracijos direktoriaus pareigoms užimti. Eurojustas buvo įkurtas 2002 m., siekiant pagerinti valstybių narių kompetentingų institucijų efektyvumą kovojant su sunkiais, tarptautinio pobūdžio nusikaltimais ir organizuotu nusikalstamumu. Eurojustą sudaro prokurorų, teisėjų arba policijos pareigūnų Kolegija, atsakanti už šios institucijos organizaciją ir veiklą. Administracijos direktorius, prižiūrint Kolegijos prezidentui, atsako už kasdieninį Eurojusto administravimą ir personalo valdymą. Norėdami peržiūrėti detalų pranešimą apie laisvas pareigas ir paraiškos pateikimo procedūrą, prašome apsilankyti mūsų tinklapyje:

http://www.eurojust.europa.eu/careers/vacancies/Pages/Vacancies.aspx

Paskutinis paraiškos pateikimo terminas – 2017 metų kovo 17 d. iki vidurnakčio Centrinės Europos laiku.

---
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000060 18-JUN-2019 07:53 AM
#### ALVAREZ v. STATE.

No. 15065.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1932.

John ,A. Pope, of Laredo, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, J.

The offense is assault with intent to murder ; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

There being no sentence in the record, we are not authorized to consider the appeal on its merits. Butler v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 8 S.W.(2d) 183; Doyle v. State, 104 Tex. Cr. R. 582, 286 S. W. 214.

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.