alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JAMES BRYAN MENKE,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 28,940

5 PHILIP C. GADDY, BERNARD FENENBOCK,

6 GLENNA GADDY, LANE GADDY, WESTON

7 GADDY, GADDY LAW FIRM,

8 Defendants-Appellees.

9 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

10 Richard J. Knowles, District Judge

11 James Bryan Menke

12 Albuquerque, NM

13 Pro Se Appellant

14 Philip C. Gaddy

15 Lane Gaddy

16 Weston Gaddy

17 Albuquerque, NM

18 Bernard Fenenbock

19 El Paso, TX

20 Pro Se Appellees

21 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 CASTILLO, Judge.

2 Appellant, pro se, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his

3 complaint. This Court’s first notice proposed summary affirmance on the basis that

4 Appellant failed to include the information necessary to determine the issues raised.

5 Appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. Because

6 Appellant has not provided the information requested by this Court, we affirm the

7 district court’s order.

8 The first notice of proposed disposition expressly requested that Appellant

9 inform this Court of the exact claims brought in the prior litigation, who brought them,

10 in what capacity they were brought, against whom they were brought, and whether

11 they were resolved. Appellant needed only to name the specific claims brought in the

12 prior litigation and show that those claims were not resolved or that they were

13 different from the claims asserted in this case. The memorandum in opposition asserts

14 that the information requested by this Court is contained in the record proper.

15 However, many of the exhibits and documents referred to in the motions were not

16 made a part of the record. Nevertheless, even absent those documents, Appellant

17 could have met his burden by providing the specific information requested. See State

18 v. Calanche, 91 N.M. 390, 392, 574 P.2d 1018, 1020 (Ct. App. 1978) (stating that

19 factual recitations in the docketing statement are accepted as true unless the record on
3

1 appeal shows otherwise).

2 We presume that the district court is correct. Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. &

3 Fabricating, Inc., 111 N.M. 6, 8, 800 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1990). Therefore, the burden

4 is on Appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred. Id. The docketing

5 statement failed to set out all the relevant facts, and the memorandum in opposition

6 failed to remedy this deficiency, despite this Court’s specific request. See Thornton

7 v. Gamble, 101 N.M. 764, 769, 688 P.2d 1268, 1273 (Ct. App. 1984) (requiring

8 counsel to set out all the relevant facts in the docketing statement ). Therefore, we

9 conclude that Appellant has not met his burden of showing that the district court erred

10 in dismissing the complaint.

11 For these reasons and those stated in the first notice, we affirm the district

12 court’s order.

13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 ________________________________

15 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge 

16 WE CONCUR:
4

1 ________________________________

2 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

3 ________________________________

4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM STATEMENTS
OF OPERATIONS, BALANCE SHEETS AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                        1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                    PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                         60,968
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                       18,912
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,325
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                               0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     1,127
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   120,332
<COMMON>                                           1,191
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                         36,654
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                               32,571
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                    70,416
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                        1,446
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                              22,657
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                     0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                              0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                         0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      1,063
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                              0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                            0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                       0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                    24,750
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    120,332
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                         15,902
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               3,147
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        13,455
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                        16,602
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            2,447
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 5,675
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     8,122
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (463)
<NET-INCOME>                                       4,496
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           16
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      4,496
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             716
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                              0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             3,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.61
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30686]



[[Page 75285]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6613-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental 
Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and 
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. 
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of 
Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in Federal Register dated April 
14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-FTA-K40241-HI, Rating LO, Oahu Primary Corridor 
Transportation Project, Improvements from Kapolei in the west to the 
University of Hawaii-Manoa and Waikiki in the east, Major Investment 
Study, In the City and County of Honolulu, HI.
    Summary: EPA has no objection to the proposed action.
    ERP No. D-NOA-L91011-AK, Rating NS, Cook Inlet Beluga Whale Stock, 
Federal Actions Associated with the Management and Recovery, 
Implementation, Cook Inlet, AK.
    Summary: EPA Region 10 used a screening tool to conduct a limited 
review of this action. Based upon this screen, EPA does not foresee 
having any environmental objections to the proposed project. Therefore 
EPA will not be conducting a detailed review.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-L65349-ID, Warm Springs Ridge Vegetation Management 
Project, Improve Forest Condition, Boise National Forest, Cascade 
Resource Area, Boise County, ID.
    Summary: The final EIS responded to EPA's previous comments on the 
draft EIS. Therefore, EPA has no objection to the action as proposed.
    ERP No. FS-FHW-L40198-WA, North Spokane Corridor (formerly known as 
the North Spokane Freeway) New Information Concerning Transportation 
Improvements through the City of Spokane and Spokane County and between 
I-90, Funding, Spokane County, WA.
    Summary: EPA still has concerns regarding two issues. The FSEIS 
does not adequately describe relevant Best Management Practices for 
potential impacts to surface and groundwater resources in the area. 
Secondly, the EIS should contain information identifying the contents 
of the drums associated with the fertilizer plant located in the 
alignment right-of-way and describe how the drums will be disposed.

    Dated: November 28, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-30686 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
#### WINKLER v. FIRST NAT. BANK OF PECOS.

No. 3824.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Nov. 9, 1939.

*342W. A. Hadden, of Fort Stockton, for appellant.

Henry Russell and James D. Willis, both of Pecos, for appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The First National Bank of Pecos, Texas, brought this suit against Sam Wink-ler and N. Winkler to recover upon a promissory note in its favor executed by the defendants. Sam Winkler answered the plaintiff’s petition by general demurrer and general denial. N. Winkler answered in like manner, and further set up that he was a surety upon the note for his codefendant, and asked that upon the hearing the question of principal and surety be determined and if judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff the Court direct execution be issued as provided by law under the principal and surety statutes. To this pleading of N. Winkler the defendant Sam Winkler filed no answer.

The case was tried without a jury and the Court found that N. Winkler was not a surety on the note and denied the special relief sought by him as above' stated.

N. Winkler appeals, complaining only of the denial of the special relief sought by him against his co-defendant.

The undisputed evidence shows the suretyship status as pleaded by the appellant. Appellant so testified, and there is nothing whatever to impeach his testimony to that effect. On the contrary, such testimony is corroborated by Mr. Beauchamp, cashier of the plaintiff in the suit, who testified that Sam Winkler made all of the payments shown to have been pain upon the note, and it was his understanding that N. Winkler signed the note as surety for Sam Winkler.

In the state of the pleadings and undisputed evidence, the Court erred in finding against the appellant upon the issue of suretyship and in denying the special relief prayed by appellant. .

The judgment will be corrected so- as to direct that execution be first levied on the property of Sam Winkler, as provided by Article 6247, Revised Statutes, and that if appellant be compelled to pay the judgment or any part thereof, he be entitled to. execution against Sam Winkler, as provided by Article 6248, Revised Statutes.

As corrected, the judgment is affirmed.

The costs of the appeal are taxed against Sam Winkler.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JASON PARKER,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 285 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 23rd day of August, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Amendment

     

    WHEREAS,
      MRU
      Holdings, Inc., successor-in-interest to Iempower, Inc. (the “Company”) and
      Vishal Garg (“Executive” and, with the Company, the “Parties”) are parties to an
      Employment Agreement dated as of April 1, 2004, as amended by that Waiver and
      Amendment dated September 29, 2008, as further amended by that Amendment dated
      September 29, 2008, as further amended by that Amendment dated October 17,
      2008,
      as further amended by that Waiver and Amendment dated October 31, 2008 (the
      “Agreement”).

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
      acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:

     

    1.  The
      Parties hereby agree to amend Section 1 of the Agreement by striking the phrase
      “on or before November 5, 2008” and replacing it with the phrase “on or before
      November 21, 2008.” 

     

    2.  Except
      as
      modified herein, the remainder of the terms and provisions of the Agreement
      will
      remain in full force and effect.

     

     

    UNDERSTOOD,
      AGREED, AND
      ACCEPTED:

     

    
      	VISHAL GARG	MRU HOLDINGS,
              INC.
	 	 
	/s/ Vishal Garg	By:
              /s/
              Yariv Katz
	 	Name: Yariv Katz
	 	Title:   General
              Counsel
	 	 
	Date: November 5, 2008	Date: November 5, 2008
US ONCOLOGY HOLDINGS, INC. AND US ONCOLOGY, INC.



Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael A. Sicuro, Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Michael A. Sicuro                           
|Michael A. Sicuro                               
|Principal Financial Officer of                  
|US Oncology Holdings, Inc. and US Oncology, Inc.
|                                                
|November 6, 2008
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 211 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 211

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the Governor of 
 a State to reject the resettlement of a refugee in that State unless 
there is adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security 
                     risk, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2017

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Shelby) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the Governor of 
 a State to reject the resettlement of a refugee in that State unless 
there is adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security 
                     risk, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Refugee Security Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY OF STATES TO REJECT RESETTLEMENT OF REFUGEES.

    Section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g) The Office of Refugee Resettlement shall notify the State 
agency responsible for coordinating the placement or resettlement of an 
alien eligible to be admitted to the United States under this section 
not later than 21 days before the arrival of such alien in the State.
    ``(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien eligible 
to be admitted to the United States under this section may not be 
placed or resettled in a State if the Governor of that State certifies 
to the Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement that the Director 
has failed, in the sole determination of the Governor, to provide 
adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk to 
the State.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (File No. 33-82416 and 333-08365) both pertaining to the 1989 Stock
Option Plan of ClinTrials Research Inc., and the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-92569) pertaining to the 1999 Long-Term Incentive Compensation
Plan of ClinTrials Research Inc. of our report dated February 1, 2000, except
for Note 4, as to which the date is February 16, 2000, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements and the schedule of ClinTrials Research Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Raleigh, North Carolina
February 25, 2000
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          742063
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4733687
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (415720)
<INVENTORY>                                    3975958
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               9382168
<PP&E>                                         3293943
<DEPRECIATION>                               (2834219)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 9965711
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1972731
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     7992980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9965711
<SALES>                                       19883705
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              19883705
<CGS>                                         21575304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 21575304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               7450138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              167155
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (9308892)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (9308892)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (9308892)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.86)
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                   JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             8,179,574
<SECURITIES>                                      40,429,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,039,223
<ALLOWANCES>                                           4,256
<INVENTORY>                                        2,349,514
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  52,408,184
<PP&E>                                             5,347,776
<DEPRECIATION>                                     2,150,422
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    55,975,623
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              6,091,159
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                             141,753
<OTHER-SE>                                        49,742,711
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      55,975,623
<SALES>                                            1,204,699
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   1,204,699
<CGS>                                              1,216,943
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     25,201,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (1,647,630)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (23,566,544)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (23,566,544)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (23,566,544)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (1.79)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (1.79)



</TABLE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed December 17, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-17-01476-CV ROBERT ARMSTEAD, Appellant V. PRIMROSE OAKS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-04107-E



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, J ustice Evans, and Justice Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. By postcard dated J une 27, 2018, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. We direct ed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to file a brief and an extension motion would result in the dismissal of this appeal w ithout further notice. By order dated July 25, 2018, we granted appellant’s motion to extend ti me to file his brief and ordered appellant’s brief to be filed by August 23, 2018. To date, app ellant has not filed his brief nor otherwise corresponded with the Court regar ding the status of t his appeal.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

171476F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
ROBERT ARMSTEAD, Appellant
No. 05-17-01476-CV V. PRIMROSE OAKS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-17-04107-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Evans and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this app eal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee PRIMROSE OAKS r ecover its costs of this appeal f rom appellant ROBERT ARMSTEAD.
Judgment entered December 17, 2018.